This article addresses the normative potential of the principle of sustainability to integrate the rules, principles, and procedures of international law applicable in the Arctic, so that Arctic international law can be posited more holistically and systematically. The holistic and integrative approach towards international law is particularly called for in the context of the Arctic, as the inextricable interconnectedness between its changing natural environments, its societal particularities, and its economic and industrial potential is the fundamental characteristic of the Arctic. In line with the purpose of the special issue, this article takes up a harder case of sustainability, in addressing Arctic mineral resource development. This article posits the principle of sustainability as a principle with an integrative function operating behind the primary norms relating to resource development at the international law level. In response to the claim of fragmented nature of the law at issue, this article calls for an academic examination into the normative function of the sustainability principle to forge the relevant and evolving norms applicable in the specific context of the Arctic mineral resource development towards an integral, coherent whole. This aim will be pursued using the analytical methodology employed by the International Law Commission’s (ILC) work on the “fragmentation of international law” (2006) and the “principle of integration” as identified by the International Law Association’s (ILA) work on the international law relating to sustainable development (2002–12). Finally, as an initial attempt to articulate the legal reasoning for such integration, this article examines the legal institution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a tool to present a holistic view of the international law on Arctic mineral resource development.

In 2009, the Act on Greenland Self-Government was adopted. It recognises that “the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law with the right of self-determination”. Within this framework, the people of Greenland have gained significant control over their own affairs and the right to access to independence. Yet, the extent to which this framework ensures the right of self-determination in accordance with fundamental human rights can still be questioned. From a human rights perspective, the right of self-determination is not a one-time right. It is fundamental human right that applies in different contexts beyond decolonisation and which has implications not only for colonial countries and peoples but also for the population of all territories, including indigenous and minority groups. From this perspective, this contribution seeks to disentangle and analyse the different facets of self-determination in Greenland while considering the implications of the right based on the multifarious identity of the peoples living in the country as colonial people, citizens, indigenous and minority groups, including their claim to control mining resources.

The Arctic is the last potential source of hydrocarbon left on Earth which makes it a quite attractive area for oil and gas company expansion and development. However, this development cannot proceed without the support from the Russian government. There are non-negligible risks which cannot be evaluated by pure economics as well as various challenges that must be overcome. This commentary will explore those risks and challenges and evaluate the recent acceleration of Arctic oil and gas development in Russia. It will also set the stage where the discussion on the sustainability of Russian Arctic resource development should be focused.

Under the influence of a rapidly warming climate, abrupt changes have been observed along the coast of Greenland. This commentary is based on a Japanese research project initiated in 2012, in which we examined the recent changes in the coastal environment and their impacts on human society in Qaanaaq, a village in northwestern Greenland. Initially, our research sought to quantify the mass loss of glaciers and its interaction with the ocean in the Qaanaaq region. Over the course of the project in collaboration with local communities, we soon realised that the changes in glaciers and the ocean directly impacted the ~600 residents of Qaanaaq. We observed natural disasters triggered by climate change. Environmental changes are also important for local economy and industry because loss of sea ice may lead to growth in transportation, tourism and mineral resource exploration. In order to share the results of our study with the Qaanaaq community, and to gain understanding of local and traditional knowledge, we organised an annual meeting in the village every summer since 2016. Our experience demonstrates the critical importance of performing a long-term multidisciplinary study, including participation of the local communities to understand the changing environment, and to contribute to a sustainable future in Qaanaaq.

In recent years, two soft law instruments have emerged to promote sustainable development in the Arctic, namely the Arctic Investment Protocol by the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Arctic and the Arctic Economic Council’s Code of Ethics. These instruments seek to foster sustainable development through responsible investment and good business practices. The emergence of these soft law instruments by non-State actors demonstrates an interest from the business sector and Arctic stakeholders to develop business norms and standards of sustainable development that are specific to the region. In understanding the potential and scope of these instruments, this paper considers the role of both instruments in driving sustainable development in the Arctic.

In past discussions regarding development (of non-living resources) and indigenous people, a strong tendency existed to understand the act of development as a one-way impact from an outside society. This was often labelled as “environmental racism” and interpreted as a form of ethnic discrimination deeply intertwined with environmental issues. However, this view contained an element of confirmation bias regarding development and indigenous people. For example, it has been reported that in Alaska and elsewhere, indigenous people have taken initiative in developing non-living resources, making it clear that indigenous people are not necessarily passive subjects on whom development is unilaterally imposed. In this paper, after examining recent trends in the development of non-living resources, I shall take up the development of such resources in Greenland with the goal of sorting out and extrapolating the main arguments in the debate, especially within the self-rule government, regarding how the wealth obtained through the development of non-living resources should be enjoyed, while focusing on the notion of sustainable development and taking into consideration previous studies from the field of political science.

The paper demonstrates how the evolution of international law on colonial and indigenous peoples, in particular evolving rights to sovereignty over natural resources, shaped the changing relationship between Greenland and the rest of the Danish Realm. Greenland today is in a unique position in international law, enjoying an extremely high degree of self-government. This paper explores the history, current status and future of Greenland through the lens of international law, to show how international obligations both colour its relationship with the Kingdom of Denmark and influence its approaches to resource development internally. It considers the invisibility of the Inuit population in the 1933 Eastern Greenland case that secured Danish sovereignty over the entire territory. It then turns to Denmark’s registration of Greenland as a non-self-governing territory (colony) in 1946 before Greenland’s-purported decolonisation in 1953 and the deficiencies of that process. In the second part of the 20th century, Denmark began to recognise the Greenland Inuit as an indigenous people before a gradual shift towards recognition of the Greenlanders as a people in international law, entitled to self-determination, including the right to permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. This peaked with the Self-Government Act of 2009. The paper will then go on to assess competing interpretations of the Self-Government Act of 2009 according to which the Greenland self-government is the relevant decision-making body for an increasing number of fields of competence including, since 1 January 2010, the governance of extractive industries. Some, including members of the Greenland self-government, argue that the Self-Government Act constitutes full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2007), but this view is not universally shared. The paper also considers the status and rights of two Greenland minorities: the North Greenlanders (Inughuit) and the East Greenlanders, each of whom has distinct histories, experiences of colonisation, dialects (or languages) and cultural traditions. While the Kingdom of Denmark accepts the existence of only one indigenous people, namely, the Inuit of Greenland, this view is increasingly being challenged in international fora, including the UN human rights treaty bodies, as the two minorities are in some cases considered distinct indigenous peoples. Their current position in Greenland as well as in a future fully independent Greenland is examined, and the rights that they hold against the Greenland self-government as well as the Kingdom of Denmark explored. Greenland’s domestic regime for governance of non-renewable natural resources (principally mining and hydrocarbons) is briefly analysed and compared with international standards, with a particular emphasis on public participation. The paper assesses the extent to which it complies with the standards in key international instruments.

This article argues that the concept of diligence provides a useful role in clarifying (and perhaps narrowing) the discretionary powers of the State with respect to the development of natural resources. The claim has two branches. First, the concept of due diligence plays an important role in bridging the normative gap between the harms caused by private actors and the international law of State responsibility. It is the vehicle by which States can be made to assume responsibility for private developments within their jurisdiction and control that cause harm to other States. Second, the concept of due diligence plays an important role (a “generative role”) in teasing out the detailed logical implications of more abstract primary norms such as the duty of prevention. These derivative duties include the duties to make a preliminary assessment of whether the proposed activity may cause a risk of significant transboundary harm: to conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA) if there is a risk of significant harm and, if the EIA confirms that risk, to notify and consult with respect to possible measures to prevent or mitigate that risk. The article demonstrates both of these claims through an examination of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and arbitral awards. Finally, the article applies these claims in the context of possible resource developments in Alaska, British Columbia and Yukon that may have transboundary implications.

Although the Arctic is emerging as a promising region for energy development and maritime transportation, navigational safety is a persistent and growing concern. What can international trade regulations do to ensure the safe transportation of natural resources on the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the sustainable development of the Arctic region? Government support is almost inevitable for shipyards, particularly in a highly competitive market. Shipyards build large-scale vessels that navigate the Arctic Ocean. However, excessive export competition will soon lead to over-production and exportation of substandard products. Assuming that even a single incident in the NSR could have a disastrous impact on the flora and fauna of the entire Arctic region, the potential for substandard vessel use represents a significant risk and potential damage to the environment. Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) has detailed rules for this purpose with an effective dispute settlement mechanism, the history of WTO disputes has proven that WTO proceedings sometimes result in unintended consequences. As an alternative option, along with negotiations under the WTO and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this paper suggests the possibility of a critical mass agreement to mutually allow more flexible government support for vessels only if they have superior environmental performance.