加拿essay代写:海洋北极环境治理

21 4月 加拿essay代写:海洋北极环境治理

加拿essay代写:海洋北极环境治理

海洋北极环境治理是一个复杂的系统。北极地区存在着正式和非正式的治理结构。治理的复杂性是由这些不同的结构造成的。北极国家和北极域外国家都积极参与环境治理。这里需要考虑的一个有趣的研究点是,在利益相关者表示方面是否存在差异?如果是这样,我们可以做些什么来管理这些差异呢?在任何一个既定的立法体系中,关注立法对不同利益相关者群体的影响将是一件有趣的事情,而在北极环境治理方面,由于该体系固有的复杂性,这种影响甚至更大。

1.1。研究背景

1.2。研究问题

将要解决的研究问题是,在北极环境监管的多中心软法形成过程中,是否存在较小利益相关者(国家或群体,如土著人)代表性不足的问题?

1.3。研究问题的意义

之所以选择这个研究问题,是因为在立法体系复杂的地方,立法必然会有漏洞(Rothwell 2000)。为了分析现有的制度和法律框架,研究人员已经确定,如何考虑到当地、区域和国际尺度存在固有的复杂性(OSPAR委员会,2007)。在治理和利益相关者代表和利益方面的差距已经被确定,但这些差距在多大程度上反映在北极治理中,以及较小的利益相关者代表不足,是一个以前的研究没有解决的问题。

考虑到环境治理方面的问题很多,这项关于立法框架中代表性不足的研究将是非常广泛的。一方面,以物种为导向的方法存在,它们关注北极熊和白鲸。有一些区域和跨部门的方法与巴伦支海和大东北大西洋有关(Rothwell, 2000, p。125年,p.139)。虽然基于位置的生态系统治理是总体目标,但需要采取实际步骤来理解过去和现在的软法律制定可能需要进行一些更改。提出了立法和治理框架的不同要素,并提出了改革的理由。在北极环境治理中,提出了利益相关者代表的多系统方法。

加拿essay代写:海洋北极环境治理

Environmental governance in the marine Arctic is a complex system. There are formal and informal governance structure presented in the Arctic. The complexity of the governance is caused by these different structures. The countries in the Arctic and outside the territory of the Arctic both try to take an active interest in the environmental governance. An interesting research point to consider here is whether there are there issues of differences in stakeholder representation? If so, what could be done to manage these differences? In any given legislative system, it would be interesting to note the effect of legislation on different stakeholder groups and in the case of the Arctic environmental governance it is even more so because of the inherent complexity of the system.

1.1. Research Background

1.2. Research Question

The research question that will be addressed is ‘Is there an issue of underrepresentation of smaller stakeholders (countries or groups such as indigenous people) in the formation of polycentric soft law for Arctic environmental regulation?’

1.3. Research Question Significance

The reason that this research question was chosen was because where the legislative system is complex, it automatically follows that there would be gaps in legislation (Rothwell 2000). To analyse the existing institutional and legal framework, researchers have established that there is an inherent complexity on how to take into consideration of the local, regional and international scales (OSPAR Commission, 2007). Gaps in governance and stakeholder representation and interests have been identified, but how far are these gaps reflected in the arctic governance and are the smaller stakeholders being underrepresented is a question that has not been addressed in research before.

This study of underrepresentation in the legislative framework would be very broad, considering that environmental governance aspects are in plenty. At one end, species oriented approaches exist which concern themselves with polar bears and beluga whales. There are regional and cross sectoral approaches which concern themselves with Barents Sea and the greater North East Atlantic’s (Rothwell, 2000, p.125, p.139). While place based ecosystem governance is the general aim, practical steps need to be taken to understand how soft law formulations in the past and present might require some changes. Different elements of the legislative and the governance framework are presented, and an argument is made for change. A multi system approach toward stakeholder representation is argued for governance in the Arctic environment.