CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

JAN ONDŘEJ CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ the Arctic. It also appreciates the fact that the first legally binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council, the Agreement on Cooperation in Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic , has come into force. The Declaration also contains issues concerning acting on climate change . It confirms the commitment of all Arctic states to work together and with other countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992. It urges all parties to the Convention to continue to take urgent action to meet the long-term goal aimed at limiting the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. It also urges the parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to take action to achieve enhanced black carbon and methane emission reductions in the Arctic and to report at the next ministerial meeting, in 2015. Another part of the Declaration also pays attention to protecting the Arctic environment. It announces the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, which is the second legally binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council. The Council decided to establish a task force to develop an Arctic Council action plan or other arrangements on oil pollution prevention and to present the outcomes of its work and any recommendations for further action at the next ministerial meeting in 2015. The Declaration notes with concern that Arctic biodiversity is being degraded and that climate change is the most serious threat. It welcomes the Arctic biodiversity assessment and approves its recommendations and encourages Arctic states to follow up on its recommendations. Further on in the Declaration attention is paid to other environmental issues. An important point of the Declaration is strengthening of the Arctic Council. It acknowledges that the work of the Arctic Council continues to evolve to respond to new challenges and opportunities in the Arctic. It requests senior Arctic officials to recommend ways and means to strengthen how the work of the Arctic Council is carried out, including identifying opportunities for Arctic states to use the Council’s work to influence and shape action in other regional and international fora as well as identifying approaches to support the active participation of Permanent Participants. It requires them to present a report on their work at the next ministerial meeting in 2015. There are s ome parallels between the conception of the Arctic Council and the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting; however, there are also a number of significant differences . Concerning these differences, the basis for consultative meetings of the Antarctic Treaty is the Treaty itself (Article IX), while in the case of the Arctic Council it is not a legally binding document. As already mentioned above, no special treaty about the Arctic has been concluded. This also leads to a difference in the objective of concluded acts. In the case of the AntarcticTreaty, Article IX, paragraph 1 presupposes that the meeting shall be for formulating and considering, and recommending to their Governments measures in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the Treaty. A similar formulation is naturally missing in the Arctic Council document. The acts concluded at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting are often specific

116