Due to such unique natural, economic, social, geographical and political features the Arctic region has become now a crossroad for various interests of states, economic activities, peoples and communities. Growing pressures on the ecosystem of the Arctic have noticeable environmental implications with already existing and expected problems of environmental degradation. All this makes both international cooperation and national efforts in environmental protection a vital task. Internationally, several initiatives have been undertaken in this direction[2], however, they do not have yet a high priority on the background of territorial and economic ambitions of states.

Many internal interests meet at the Arctic crossroad of Russia. The country has jurisdiction over the largest EEZ as compared to other Arctic states, has well-developed fishing and oil extraction activities and claims to have control over the extended continental shelf. Its military fleet with nuclear weapons is based here, and it exploits ever more actively the North Seaway. Since early 20^th century Russia has been developing economics at its continental part of the Arctic, where now such industries as minerals extraction, forest production, ship-building are based. The present policy views further growth of these interests and respectively activities aimed to reach them. This perspective sets important environmental challenges for Russia.

For the recent time certain steps to create the adequate legal basis for environmental protection of the Arctic have been undertaken in Russia. In addition to the federal laws, like the Law on the Continental Shelf (1995 with amendments), On the Exclusive Economic Zone (1998), On Internal Sea Waters, Territorial Sea and Adjacent Zone (1998) that implement certain provisions of the Law of the Sea (ratified by the RF in 1997), in 2008 the president Medvedev approved “The Fundamentals of the National Policy of the RF in the Arctic for the Period up to 2020 and Further Perspectives” (Fundamentals), under which conservation of the unique environmental system together with the use of the Arctic as a strategic resource base, use of the North Seaway as a national transportation communication route and protection of the Arctic as a region of peace and international cooperation were declared as national interests of the state. As to environmental protection the document provides for implementing such measures as eliminating of stocked environmental pollution and addressing climate change.

Implementing the Fundamentals in respect to environmental protection of the Arctic requires adoption of specific legislation. The law-making activities are now underway. The draft law on eliminating the stocked environmental damage is aimed to address the problem of dealing with pollution that has been stocked in certain regions under past economic activities. Such regions also comprise the continental part of the Russian Arctic and radioactive pollution of sea by defense activities. The draft law On conservation of the marine environment and its protection against oil pollution that is underway is intended to set rules aimed to prevent oil spills and provide for obligations of tankers to eliminate pollution. The discussion of drafts go with disagreements between various interested groups, change in approaches to deal with problems and in fact in putting off adoption of decisions.[3] At the moment general legal rules on environmental protection are applied in respect to Arctic problems.

Practical steps to improve the environmental situation and address other interests of the country in the Russian Arctic are provided for in the Federal Programme “Global Ocean” approved by the Governmental Decree in 1998 that has a section “Development and Use of the Arctic”. The programme provides for removing the risks and consequences of environmental pollution, widening of the sea scientific expeditions, improving of the environmental monitoring system for the sake of addressing climate change problems. The activities are to get funding from the budget and other sources.

[1] The Arctic. http://ru/wikipedia.org; Kolodkin A.L. and others. Outer Sea. International Legal Regime. Main Problems. Moscow. Status Publishers. 2007. P. 257-258. The southern boundaries of the Arctic Region are counted differently and this is critical for determining the list of the Arctic states and their respective rights. Roughtly there are two approaches. One is to count the Arctic region from the Northern Pole down up to the southern line of tundra - 27 million square km that comprises as Arctic countries Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland. Iceland and the USA, or down to the Arctic Circle comprising states that directly border the Arctic Ocean – (Russia, USA, Canada, Denmark, Norway) – 21 million square km.

[2] E.g. cooperation within the Arctic Council (1996), under the Treaty over the Svalbard (Spitsbergen) Archipelago (1920), the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (1991), Illulissat Declaration (2008). In 2011 Russia and Norway ratified the Treaty on Marine Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean

[3] Meeting of the Presidium of the State Council on Environmental Security and Elimination of Stocked Environmental Damage. 10 June 2011. http://blog.ecoaudit.ru/2011/06/blog-post.html

There are many issues relating to environment that interface with international law principles (ILPs) such as sovereignty, non- interference and human rights. These principles/rights are often applied, at least in the ASEAN context, without calibration. Other potential ILPs include the newly emerging concept of R2P (Responsibility to Protect), which is also at the crossroads between national sovereignty and collective sovereignty (pooling) in the context of transboundary environmental challenges. R2P has its roots in the human security approach and is also connected to humanitarian intervention.

‘Human security’ as mentioned in the United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report, is global in scope and covers threats in seven areas including environment. Such threats also have impacts on international relations and politics. ASEAN is helping to shape this concept through its Non- Traditional Security (NTS) approach under the ASEAN Political- Security Community (APSC) Blueprint, 2009-2015. This approach applies in “transboundary challenges” which could include transboundary environmental challenges such as pandemics (avian flu), climatic disasters (flooding, climatic migrations, impact of climate change, food and water security).

The paper will examine the above discourse in the ASEAN context with some illustrative case studies from (1) disaster management in Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar( albeit a natural disaster)and the recent floods in Thailand;(2) Indonesian Haze – ASEAN’s approach: a down play under the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Blueprint rather than the NTS approach under the ASEAN Political- Security Community (APSC) Blueprint. The Haze is classified as “transboundary pollution” under ASCC. Is this not also a transboundary challenge calling for an NTS approach under APSC? Or, it could morph from ASCC into the APSC; (3)zoonotic diseases (eg Avian Flu) which has the potential of becoming pandemic; and climate migration (should this occur in the region, eg sea- level rise, it can cause climatic migrations of thousands into another country. The rationale for the NTS approach, and R2P can be based on human security. According to the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan: “The demands we face also reflect a growing consensus that collective security can no longer be narrowly defined as the absence of armed conflict, be it between or within States ... environmental disasters present a direct threat to human security.” Human security has entered the lexicon of environmental law, and ASEAN is shaping to give it more contexts in the area of environment.

The complexity of the above environmental issues inevitably brings to the fore many issues at crossroads.