Thursday, October 1, 2020
Identifying Strategic Impacts of a Changing Arctic
|
11:00am |
12:10pm |
(Closed) Session 1 – Profiting from Strategic Development Impacts in the Arctic: The Balance between Commercial Activities and Geopolitical Dynamics Moderator: Ms. Debbie Atuk, Portfolio Specialist, SkyView Investment Advisors; Board Member, Bering Straits Native Corporation This session will address security and social risks and rewards stemming from economic development in the Arctic, identify who is engaged in this development and why, and discuss potential approaches to investment promotion. A changing Arctic landscape has major domestic and international economic implications. As ice melts and natural resources become more accessible, opportunities for natural resource exploration and extraction grow. In addition to fossil fuels, the region is rich in fish and precious minerals. The opening ice also accelerates a race to open high-traffic shipping lanes across the region and increase port capacity. A modern day “gold rush” is anticipated, with a multitude of State and non-State actors – including multinational corporations – eager to increase their presence in this region and harness new economic opportunities. China and Russia have been particularly keen to increase their regional economic development activities. Russia has fortified its regional infrastructure and strengthened its presence around potential new shipping lanes. China – as part of its global “One Belt, One Road” strategy – has focused on increasing its access to natural resources and shipping opportunities. Recognizing potential legal and ethical responsibilities and duties to and of State and non-State actors, we will examine environmental and social considerations related to strategic development initiatives, compare approaches of local/domestic and multinational corporations, discuss sovereign roles in economic development of “green” and “blue” economies, and consider the import of international legal commitments and guidelines outlining said roles. Possible questions to consider in this session include: What are State motivations for regional economic development? What ethical and fiduciary duties are triggered by human activities in this region, particularly to the people living in this region? Do corporations and/or States have ethical or legal obligations to mitigate/minimize the environmental and social impacts of their activities? Should Arctic nations and corporations – including Native Corporations – adapt their economic activities to fit “green” and “blue” economy models? Should governments encourage free market expansion of economic development in the region, or regulate growth to promote environmental protection? Will they do so? If so, how should they balance the perceived competition between stated development and environmental policy goals? |
12:10pm |
2:00pm |
Break |
2:00pm |
3:00pm |
(Closed) Session 2 – Threats to Physical Security: Increasing Militarization and Resource Conflicts Moderator: Mr. Anthony Johnson, Strategic Red Team Chief in the Joint Advanced Warfighting Division, Institute for Defense Analyses This session will confront the impacts of Climate Change on physical security in the Arctic and beyond. It will focus on the impacts of increased militarization and strategic operational activities in the region, construction of essential and durable infrastructure to support military operations and strategic natural resource development, and implications of the region’s changing biodiversity and potential for igniting mass casualty events and conflicts. Some worry that a race for resources and scientific achievements could snowball into a new cold war or active conflict among Arctic and Great powers. Arctic and Arctic-adjacent sovereigns have demonstrated that they will go to great lengths to harness the economic and scientific potential of the region, including acquiring samples of heretofore frozen species, bacteria, and viruses. These activities – whether scientifically, economically, or security motivated – come with risks. As the U.S. Department of Defense has recognized, “[i]ncreased economic activity in the Arctic raises the probability of a mass casualty incident … where DoD assistance may be requested.” Possible questions to consider in this session include: What does “militarization” of the Arctic look like? If the Arctic is further militarized, what physical risks would that present for its local population? What role should indigenous and civilian populations play in strategic defense operations? Is increased conflict in the region inevitable in the face of Climate Change? What can be done to minimize potential conflicts over resources? How does the changing climate affect military readiness? How can Arctic states prepare for the public emergencies that may be set into motion by government and private-sector activities in the Arctic? |
3:00pm |
3:30pm |
Break |
3:30pm |
4:40pm |
(Closed) Session 3 – Threats to Human Security: Migration, Agricultural, and Cultural Disruption
Moderator: Dr. Melody Brown Burkins, Associate Director, The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, Senior Fellow, UArctic Institute of Arctic Policy, Dartmouth College This session will confront the impacts of Climate Change on human migration and the potential for cultural tensions, disruption, and conflict. As the Arctic melts, global sea levels rise, forcing people from their traditional homes and communities not only in the Arctic, but in coastal regions all over the globe. Increased strategic defense operations and natural resource development activities are also expected both to increase the influx of people and infrastructure to the Arctic region and to encourage current population concentrations to shift. Changing climate patterns also force flora and fauna out of their traditional territories and into others, affecting Arctic and other food sources. Human migration will result in some of the most impactful geopolitical shifts we can expect from Climate Change, but is the world ready? Possible questions to consider in this session include: What are the impacts of changing food sources (including fish and prey of traditional hunters) on human activity in the Arctic? Does a changing Arctic landscape have implications for biodiversity and health security in other regions of the globe? Can current human rights structures handle the human and environmental shifts of a changing Arctic? Is our current international legal system ready for climate migration? How are indigenous communities and current Arctic populations responding to Climate Change threats? How is migration fueling conflict between migrating groups and between migrants and their new host states? Are current monitoring and governance structures sufficient to respond to local needs and ensure that local populations are represented in decision-making processes? |
Saturday, October 3, 2020
10:30am |
Morning Coffee Talk on U.S. Arctic Strategy with Senator Angus King
Conversation with: |
|
1:30pm |
2:40pm |
(Closed) Session 5 – A Status Check on U.S. Policy This session will explore evolving U.S. policy on the Arctic and identify gaps between present U.S. defense and other foreign policy actions and the United States’ stated goals of maintaining national defense, counterbalancing regional balance of power, and ensuring free and open markets. This session’s discussions will give particular attention to analyzing the Department of Defense Arctic Strategy (updated June 2019), the January 2019 Department of Defense Report on the Effects of Climate Change to the Department, and U.S. consideration and possible accession to international covenants such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). To that end, possible questions to consider in this session include: How has U.S. Arctic policy evolved in the last 5 years to respond to rapidly increasing rate of weather and temperature changes in Arctic regions? How is it continuing to evolve to respond to “Great Powers” (Russian and Chinese) activity in the Arctic? Does DoD Arctic Strategy sufficiently address these physical changes as well as contemporaneous geopolitical and resource shifts? What are the Strategy’s strengths and weaknesses? Is the United States on-track to meet the goals set out in the Strategy? How does U.S. Arctic strategy comport with and/or influence the U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS)? Recognizing the DoD Arctic Strategy recognizes the importance of inter-agency cooperation on Arctic issues, how should civilian and military entities work together to advance identified security objectives? |
2:40pm |
3:00pm |
Break |
3:00pm |
4:00pm |
(Public) – The Rule of Law? Maximizing Hard and Soft Law Arctic Governance Panelists: Dr. Dalee Sambo Dorough, Chair, Inuit Circumpolar Council; Senior Scholar and Special Adviser on Arctic Indigenous Peoples, University of Alaska Anchorage
Dr. Lassi Heininen, Professor of Arctic Politics, University of Lapland; Editor of Arctic Yearbook This session will consider the current and future state of hard Arctic governance – like treaty mechanisms, domestic environmental law, domestic regulation of Arctic activity, and UNCLOS – and soft governance – like Arctic Council declarations and domestic intelligence policy guidelines – and their ability to advance strategic physical and economic security objectives in the region. Unforeseen challenges arising from Climate Change are testing the limits of the Arctic’s existing rules-based order, including “hard” and “soft” law and governance structures. Structures and mechanisms that may have worked when much of the Arctic was unreachable and/or unexploitable may not be well-equipped to handle a physically changed landscape. There are growing legal questions surrounding who has the right to the Arctic’s resources, sea passages, as well as the responsibility to protect the Arctic terrain and its inhabitants. The rapidly changing Arctic climate necessitates rapid responses to these questions. To that end, possible questions to consider in this session include: What is the current state of the Arctic’s hard and soft law and governance structures? Are they enough to handle new political and economic challenges presented by Climate Change? At present, six indigenous communities have Permanent Participant status on the Arctic Council, affording them rights to observe and address the Arctic Council, but no voting power. Should they be given voting power on the Council? What is the potential role of UNCLOS in U.S. Arctic strategy? What are the most compelling arguments for and against U.S. ratification of UNCLOS? Are the relevant actors meeting their soft law obligations, and if not, are there enough enforcement mechanisms to address breaches? What new enforcement mechanisms may be needed? How are States using legal frameworks and governance structures to respond to Climate Change? Are States attempting to alter these international governance systems? Is there a need to? To what extent do these reactions threaten national security? Should internal government policy structures be changed to handle these new national security threats? |
4:00pm |
4:05pm |
Break |
4:05pm |
4:30pm |
Closing and Closed Group Plenary Prof. Claire Finkelstein, Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Faculty Director, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Ms. Alexandra A.K. Meise, Senior Fellow, Center for Ethics and Rule of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School |