Russian Proposals on the Polar Code: Contributing to Common Rules or Furthering State Interests?
The mandatory Polar Code was finally adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in May 2015. The present article examines the role and contribution of the Russian Federation in the decision-making process of the Polar Code through its proposals, in the form of submissions, statements, and oral interventions. The purpose of these proposals is investigated with respect to the safety and environmental protection goals of the IMO and Russian interests in the Arctic, by looking at the reasoning used by Russia in its proposals. The major issue areas represented in the Russian proposals include, among others, the role of coastal State legislation, environmental regulations, and icebreaker assistance; however, the majority of these do not contribute to the IMO’s goals of creating globally uniform standards for maritime safety and protecting the marine environment. The Russian proposals served State interests through misrepresentation and reference to Russia’s experience in Arctic shipping. While the latter frames Russia as a leading user of Arctic waters, the role that Russia played in the Polar Code negotiations indicates that Russia has more than shipping interests to protect in the Arctic.
(Published: November 2016)
Citation: D. Bognar. ‘‘Russian Proposals on the Polar Code: Contributing to Common Rules or Furthering State Interests?’’ Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2016, pp. 111–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v7.415
Authors contributing to The Arctic Review on Law and Politics retain copyright to their articles but agree to publish them under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License. The terms of this license permit third parties to freely copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to adapt, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated. The foregoing may be done in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses the third party or their use.