REGULARIZED TARGET ORIENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF MARITIME SAFETY OF ARCTIC ADVENTURE CRUISE
With the exploration of the Arctic Channels, the Arctic adventure cruise industry has been developing at a rapid pace. The maritime safety issue of the Arctic adventure cruise ships is a core topic for the Arctic adventure cruise industry. To some degree, it could be regarded as the Achilles’ heel of Arctic Channel development. The maritime safety of Arctic adventure cruises is different from the traditional navigational security and environmental safety. It must not only fit the characteristics of the navigational risks in the frozen area of polar regions for the adventure cruise ships, but also fit the fragile characteristics of the environmental risks in the Arctic region. The Arctic maritime security issue is different from that of the Antarctic. For the Antarctic, there is no sovereign state there, which means there is no permanent resident. The main maritime security elements of the Antarctic are covered in the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. By contrast, at least 4 million people are living in the Arctic, and they are governed by eight sovereign states which own land within the Arctic Circle. The sovereign jurisdiction of the eight Arctic states has determined the intersection and integration characteristics of the national sovereignty dimension and the regional co-governance dimension in the concept of maritime security of Arctic adventure cruise ships. The maritime safety risks of the Arctic adventure cruise ships are mainly located outboard (onshore), which is described as the integration of sea and land, and has raised new issues for the Arctic governance. The macro guidance of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on the ‘soft law’ functional system of international conventions cannot meet the current evolution. The domestic rules created by the eight Arctic states have the trend to be regionally nationalized, which could result in a gap among the different rules and an imbalance in the management mechanism of Arctic maritime security. Thus there is a stronger need for the generalization of Arctic maritime security rules for the adventure cruise ships. Many factors converge on the shipping lanes of the Arctic adventure cruises. The fragmentation status of the nationalized legal conflict of the maritime safety attribution paradigm of the adventure cruise and the rational gap of the nationalization of the attribution system urgently needs to be changed. This is exactly the meaning of the Arctic governance system. And the design of the corresponding system is supposed to be the ultimate target value of the Arctic governance.
From a macro perspective, the goal orientation of the maritime security area of the Arctic adventure cruise is the essential meaning of Arctic governance. From a micro perspective, it is the actual need of the conceptual connotation and extension of the maritime security and the need to adjust the imbalance of the existing maritime security conventions in reality. In terms of exploring the maritime safety of Arctic adventure cruise ships, its safety risks originate from the ship. Although it is a concept derived from traditional maritime safety, the essence has evolved into a value consideration of a new logical system. The adventure cruise itself puts the ship and passengers in a high-risk environment, and the requirements of navigation safety are far higher than that of traditional maritime safety, which is, the transmutation into polar navigational safety (the ship itself plus the safety of passengers’ lives), and the different requirements of navigation technology and ship standards. The main activity of the adventure cruise is the appearance of the ship. In addition, the eight Arctic states have different focuses on the environmental interests of the polar ecological environment, which makes the environmental security in need for a regional regularized construction. Therefore, the Arctic adventure cruise is faced with the double lag of the concept and adjustment system, and it is in urgent need of regularization and improvement.
A. Construction Requirements for Theoretical Evolution of the Maritime Safety Concept of Arctic Adventure Cruise Ships
Firstly, there is a theoretical need for the extension of the maritime safety connotation of Arctic adventure cruise ships. Academically speaking, the concept of maritime security refers to protecting a country’s land, maritime territory, infrastructure, economy, environment and society from certain harmful acts that occur at sea. The UN Secretary-General specifically categorized maritime security in the Report on the Sea and the Law of the Sea of 2008: maritime acts of terrorism against ships, life, cargo on board, criminal activities of smuggling and trafficking at sea and activities which pollute the marine environment, etc. According to the Report, traditional maritime safety connotation highlights two aspects: the safety of ships, people on board and loaded cargo (value of cargo) and reduction or even elimination of marine ecological, environmental pollution caused by ships and crews. Due to the development of shipbuilding technology and the improvement of the shipping management system, the extreme weather early-warning mechanism allows marine emergencies to be controlled. The value of ship-borne cargo theory has been lowered, and navigation safety has had a new evolution. The Arctic adventure cruise is a derivative product starting from the passenger’s adventure. It does not include the cargo value theory of traditional maritime safety, and its connotation has evolved to thoughts about the return of human beings to the ecological environment, which means reducing the environmental damage caused by the ship and its personnel on the ocean, as well as the difficulty to accurately predict the high risk of adventurous activities in the polar natural environment. The demand to increase the natural value (environmental safety) and the humanistic value (safety of navigation) of adventure cruise ships has been further expanded, and the essence of it has evolved into a value consideration of a new logical system.
Secondly, there is a dilemma that the Arctic adventure cruise is faced with the extension of the maritime security concept which goes against the Antarctic paradigm. Although the Antarctic and Arctic regions are based on similarities in geographic location and climate environment, the maritime safety rules of Arctic adventure cruises have the possibility to be transplanted from the Antarctic Treaty. Nevertheless, in fact, there is an insurmountable gap between the North Pole and the South Pole. Antarctica is a tundra land surrounded by the ocean, whereas the North Pole is a region co-governed by the sovereignty of the eight Arctic states. The reality shows the nationalization of the Arctic governance on maritime safety regulations. The regional co-governance sovereignty of the eight Arctic states has not yet formed a unified specialized management organization like the Antarctic Cruise Management Association, and the Arctic Council does not have such an Arctic Treaty like the Antarctic Treaty. It is a reality that the sovereignty of each Arctic state differs obviously in the situation of Arctic co-governance. The predicament of nationalization of the maritime safety information compilation of Arctic adventure cruise ships and the lawful conflict of the national logic inherent in the maritime safety rules of Arctic adventure cruise ships put the Arctic adventure cruises in an urgent need for the construction of regional rules.
B. Practical Requirements of Self-Imbalance of the Maritime Safety Regulation System for Arctic Adventure Cruise Ships
Firstly, there exists the dilemma of blank areas in the three traditional conventions on maritime safety of Arctic adventure cruise ships. The origins of the International Convention on Maritime Safety of Arctic Adventure Cruises are scattered in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the SOLAS Convention), and the theory of laying emphasis on the safety of human life during navigation is under the International Convention on Standards for the Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the STCW Convention). It also originates from the system of maritime safety rules which focus on environmental safety under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the MARPOL Convention). However, as far as the traditional convention system is concerned, its adjustment subject does not reflect the particularity of sea and land integration in maritime safety of adventure cruise ships, and its applicable areas have not reflected the characteristics of the polar environment. With the soft law nature of traditional maritime conventions and the manifestation of the sovereignty of the eight Arctic states, the maritime security system of Arctic adventure cruise ships is facing the dilemma that there are no fitting rules to rely on.
Secondly, the International Code of Safety for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (hereinafter referred to as the Polar Code), were implemented, through the implicit amendment procedure of the applicable rules in the related SOLAS Convention and MARPOL Convention. They have been witnessing many difficulties in technical practice. The Polar Code has the dual characteristics of technical rules and mandatory documents. They adopt a system of risk assessment and a ‘convention in convention’ system based on the goal-oriented principle, with a view to improving the effectiveness of the conventions. However, the different logical starting points of each embedded rule have led to contradictions in practical application. The Polar Code has provided a large number of technical standards, procedures and operating specifications for polar maritime safety activities, and has ensured the maritime safety of Arctic adventure cruise ships by regulating the technical conditions of navigation. The technical characteristics of the Polar Code and the mandatory combination of the amendments to the SOLAS and MARPOL Conventions form the mandatory basics of the Polar Code. However, the amendment of the STCW Convention, which lags behind the amendments to the two main mandatory conventions of the SOLAS Convention and the MARPOL Convention, would further deepen the uncertainty of the permissible rule system of the Polar Code. The limited coercive force of the Polar Code and the different levels of voluntary compliance by the Arctic states have resulted in a fragmentation reality of the maritime safety conventions of the Arctic adventure cruise, and it has made it difficult for the maritime safety convention system of the Arctic adventure cruise to rely on existing regulations.
Arctic adventure cruise maritime safety rules have a regularization trend in both aspects of theory and practice. Nevertheless, in the specific construction process, it is likely to see conflicts between the logic of the Arctic adventure cruise maritime safety and environmental safety logic system, such as the fragmented reality of the maritime security rules of conduct in the eight Arctic states, specific maritime security responsibility models, reasonable gaps in responsibilities, etc. In short, the sovereignty of the eight Arctic states legally creates specific obstacles to regional regularization of maritime security.
A. Specific Value Conflict of the Maritime Security of Arctic Adventure Cruises with Its Logical System
Firstly, there exists the Law of the Jungle between maritime security and environmental security in the Arctic adventure cruise’s maritime security governance system. Maritime security is specifically oriented to a regional game that evolves into a monopoly of power and a proliferation of power. The navigation rights of the Arctic international adventure cruises, which belong to international sovereignty matters, complying with the flag state rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the UNCLOS), rely more on the domestic regulations of Arctic countries. The trade-offs between national political propositions in the Arctic governance system have presented a regional game of inherent conflict between navigation safety and environmental safety regulations. In order to realize the sovereignty rights of their own countries, countries establish their own nationally imprinted adventure cruise maritime safety navigation rules. At the same time, the fragile ecological environment protection in the Arctic region requires the proliferation of social power, such as the use of maritime environmental protection technology and the collection of environmental information in maritime security, or the output of Arctic cooperation social values on environmental safety. However, the involvement of the legalization of state sovereignty has led to a continuous cross-play of the monopoly of state power and the spread of social power, which has undermined the construction of equitable values between the specific aspects of maritime security.
Secondly, the specific goals of the Arctic adventure cruise’s navigational safety and environmental safety have shown the trend to diverge. The adventure cruise itself puts ships and passengers in a high-risk environment, and the elements of navigation safety are far higher than traditional maritime safety. This has evolved into the different requirements of navigation technology and ship standards in polar navigation safety (the ship itself plus the safety of passengers’ lives). Whether in the Northwest Passage or Northeast Passage, Arctic adventure cruise ships must inevitably abide by national sovereignty regulations. However, Arctic countries regulate adventure cruise ships with their own focuses on navigation safety, which has led to the goal-oriented trend of maritime safety of Arctic adventure cruise ships, which is decentralized. The fragile environment of the Arctic has resulted in the environmental safety problems of adventure cruises which are both regional and global. The environmental pollution of adventure cruises has no borders, and it is a shared issue of the planet, making the regional cooperation system a good way to prevent environmental security. The traditional integration assessment of maritime safety, navigation safety and environmental safety of adventure cruises has led to the departure of the goal of cooperation in environmental issues and the sovereignty goal of navigation safety in the context of Arctic regionalization.
B. Legal Conflict in Nationalization of Arctic Adventure Cruise Navigation Attribution Paradigm
First of all, the maritime safety supervision model of the Arctic adventure cruises manages many countries, which leads to the regularization of the prisoner’s dilemma in maritime safety areas of the Arctic. The Russian Northern Sea Navigation Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Beihang Administration) conducts maritime safety supervision in the form of navigational licenses for adventure cruise ships, and a comprehensive search and rescue operation system Search and Rescue (SAR) operates under the supervision of the Russian Ministry of Transport to handle maritime safety in the accident. The SAR system cooperated with the militarized force rescue centre in the Russian northwest waterway area to achieve a joint maritime safety examination and approval and militarized emergency rescue linkage supervision model. Canada implements an integrated information management model for maritime safety inspection and supervision. The Canadian Coast Guard requires the adventure cruise line to have an Arctic Pollution Prevention Certificate and report route itineraries before the voyage according to the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations (NORDREG). The system notifies the cruise liners of real-time ice formation information and the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation’s maritime safety incidents.
The US Coast Guard is responsible for adventure cruise access approvals and planned safety inspections at various stages under the Cruise Safety Act of 2010. It also inspects US Arctic waters adventure cruises in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of the US and the Clean Water Act. The American characterized Maritime Safety Association is responsible for developing a list of maritime safety recommendations. The detailed activity plans are made by the US Coast Guard who usually carries out the planned checks in different stages.
The maritime security of Danish adventure cruise ships is mainly focused on the administrative approval system of special regionalization. According to the Act on Nature Preservation in Greenland and its supporting administrative regulation Administrative Order to Enter or Travel in Specific Areas of Greenland, Denmark regulates a pass card system for the Arctic adventure cruises, which requires Danish adventure cruise ships to hold a pass card when navigating in specific areas for the check.
Finland adopts the regulation and control measures for market entry of the adventure cruise ship to realize the requirements of the ship’s type, specifications, and technical safety for construction. The sovereign imprint of Finnish adventure cruise navigation safety is shown by the taxation under administrative regulations. As for the regulations of the navigation safety of adventure cruises, the Finnish Customs regulate the technical requirements of adventure cruises in the form of attachments and through the definition of ice class, and sets standards for collecting channel fees and regulatory fees.
Norwegian view on the maritime safety of adventure cruise ships in the polar regions is that the human factor is the biggest factor that causes maritime safety damage. The Ship Safety and Security Act requires the master to ensure the independence and liability of the mental health of the crew and passengers, as well as the guarantee of material life. The captain ensures that the work of the adventure cruise is carried out properly and the rest time of the crew specified in the regulations, participates in ensuring the necessary safety facilities and equipment of the ship, and backing up drugs to ensure the life and health of passengers and crew.
Iceland’s adventure cruise maritime safety implements a seasonal control approval model, while planning the adventure cruise sailing area in the soft method of the environmental guidelines. The responsibility of the relevant maritime authorities, law enforcement authorities and onshore responders is to take into account specific circumstances and promptly notify suspected crimes, security incidents or security threats in accordance with legal authorization. The responsibility of ship safety officers in accordance with the membership procedures laid out by rules is to do their best to provide safety and benefits for passengers, crew and the ship.
In the game of the political rights of Arctic states and the conflict between the state and non-state organizations in the regional stance, the attribution paradigm of the Arctic adventure cruises is oriented towards showing different patterns, and it results in differentiated national sovereignty behaviours in terms of control models and jurisdiction delineation rules, which in turn leads to seemingly legitimate risks. The reality is that national laws of the Arctic maritime safety supervision model are legally defined, which has led to each country to draw a circle on the ground to serve as a prison, contrary to the vision of international cooperation in Arctic adventure cruise maritime security, and not conducive to the unified and standardized formation of regional rules for maritime security.
Secondly, the status quo of the national standardization of the Arctic adventure cruise’s national standard proliferation has led to the law conflict predicament of different standards applicable to the regional regularization of maritime safety of adventure cruise ships, creating legal obstacles to regional regularization. Russian Northern Aviation Administration has stipulated a charging system for icebreaking and piloting services for adventure cruise ships, and has provided Russian domestic legal remedies for the objection to charges. According to the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations, the Canadian Department of Transportation has formed the specifications, schedule and route of the Arctic international adventure cruises, and the ice navigation safety rules system. It has also established the rules system of financial guarantees for adventure cruises as determined by the Department of Transportation. The proliferation of maritime safety regulations in American cruise ships is mainly reflected in the technical safety standards of ship operations proposed by the US in the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010, and the provisions of domestic law on environmental safety break through the American priority rule standard of international conventions. Norway mainly demonstrates the characteristics of its maritime safety rules through the Norwegian Standards of the captain and crew. The Finnish Customs regulate the requirements of technical safety of adventure cruises through the form of a legal annex and realize the regularization by defining the ‘Finnish standard’ of ‘ice class’. It implements the maritime safety regulation of adventure cruises through the dynamic management of channel fees and administrative charges, and provides the relief in domestic legal proceedings path.
The maritime safety of Swedish adventure cruise ships is mainly managed by the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, and the application of polar scientific research safety rules is similar to the management of adventure cruise navigation safety. Its environmental safety reflects the characteristics of the code. Iceland, as the International Cruise Association (CLIA) member, provides emergency management technical standards for the safety of adventure cruise ships in accordance with the rules of the Association, and advocates the freedom of navigation in the exclusive economic zone and the high seas of the UNCLOS.
In summary, there are legal differences in the national paradigm of the Arctic adventure cruise navigation safety rules paradigm, leading to maritime safety rule conflict with nationalized points and decentralized patterns, making it difficult to form an ideal internal logic consistent with regional regularization model.
C. The Reasonable Gap in the Nationalization of the Arctic Adventure Cruise Navigation Liability Attribution System
The liability attribution systems of Arctic adventure cruise are different for different sovereign countries. The risk prevention method and the state of the country’s shipping sovereignty are also displayed differently under the navigation safety liability system. The reasonable gap of the Arctic adventure cruise’s nationalization reflects the different weight of the right to speak in the Arctic region. All of these have resulted in the situation that the goal orientation of the area rules of navigation safety would drift away.
First of all, the nationalization of liabilities modes for Arctic adventure cruise ships leads to the dilemma of inconsistent remedy routes for adventure cruise navigation safety rights. Russian compulsory liability insurance system for adventure cruises guarantees the security of the property of adventure cruise ships and the personal safety of adventure cruise passengers. This compulsory liability insurance system also stipulates the non-fault vicarious guaranteed liability system of flag states to prevent the maritime navigation risks of Russian Arctic adventure cruise ships.
The subject of Canadian adventure cruises is the administrative compulsory liability which requires registration and approval in advance, and it realizes the information exchange between maritime safety management administration and adventure cruise ships through the NORDREG guiding system to prevent risks by the compulsory administrative liability beforehand. Based on the Canadian adventure cruise ship’s ballast water exchange system, which is a ‘port state control’ managing measure, it constructs a coexisting responsibility model combing administrative responsibility for government-ordered compulsory decontamination costs and maritime compensation liability.
The US mainly uses the dual methods of administrative law enforcement and criminal liability regulation to protect passenger rights and interests, and adopts the ‘American-style responsibility’ attribution system after navigation safety accidents with ‘long-arm jurisdiction’ to ensure the prevention of navigation safety risks, so as to realize the maritime navigation risks prevention.
Norway implements a double punishment system of natural persons and legal persons, as well as the liability principle of common but differentiated for maritime safety accidents of captains and crews. Cruise companies would bear the responsibility of administrative fines for maritime safety. Captains and crews are responsible for violating navigational duties, and they have to bear the administrative and criminal responsibilities. Danish adventure cruise safety precautions are mainly reflected in the ‘block management’ which sets ‘forbidden zone’ and ‘no more than 24 hours’ stay zone, to achieve navigation safety risk prevention. It has formed a common but differentiated regionalized administrative responsibility system, and has the characteristic of environmental responsibility of the marine environmental resources and marine ecological tourism resources division system. Finnish risk prevention of adventure cruise mainly lies in the post guarantee liability system. Adventure cruise operation requires an EU member state or an organization-approved representative to be a guarantor and have joint compensation liability with the adventure cruise carrier. The mode of procedural remedy for the liability of the Finnish adventure cruise carrier forms a procedural entry into the sovereignty of the Arctic. Icelandic polar adventure cruises primarily protect against navigational liability risks through the access use of the International Cruise Association’s rules and international practices. At the same time, the Icelandic Environmental Agency and the Guidelines of the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators have established administrative and civil liability mechanisms for other fragile ecosystem areas such as Icelandic nature reserves. Swedish adventure cruise carriers take precautions to ensure the safety of cruise navigation while ensuring maritime safety requirements. Specifically, crews receive rigorous training in safety and first aid to prevent and respond to potential emergencies. And they accept strict international supervision on the design and construction by the IMO, flag state and port state authorities, and classification societies, which provide strict safety standards and internal supervision throughout the ship’s operation to improve safety and cruise work through review operation procedures to improve safety procedures and technology.
Second, the combination of the responsibility of Arctic adventure cruise ship countries with the entry point of their national sovereignty has led to the decentralization and difficulty of focusing on the protection of the safety interests of adventure cruise ships, and the inherent disorder of the regional regularized responsibility system as well. Russia has evolved its domestic adventure cruise activities into its national profit-making projects, and commercial icebreaking forms have realized the economic facts of Russia’s Arctic sovereignty. The responsibility mechanism of Russian adventure cruise ships has made it possible to obtain a substantial diplomatic negotiation approach on the right to speak in the Arctic governance system, so as to make the risk of liability of the adventure cruise ship fall into the category of state responsibility. Canada has realized the real existence of its sovereignty through the beforehand administrative approval and systematic operation of administrative liability. Canadian Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Oceans and the Coast Guard have provided information system services to assist cruise navigation. Through the electronic service of the NORDREG system, its jurisdiction reaches to the Arctic Exclusive Economic Zone and the high seas. The auxiliary function of the ice area navigation technology has made the national sovereignty imprint, which is not conducive to the promotion and unification of technical standards. The focus of American adventure cruise line safety responsibility is lying in the comprehensive promotion of the American interests, which aims primarily to protect the interests of the US, focusing on protecting the interests of American passengers.
Finland mainly implements Finland domestic procedure law of the Arctic adventure cruise region’s regularized system through the domestic law relief approach of receiving administrative proceedings in the waterway, and obtains the EU approach of Arctic region’s right of speech system through the guarantee liability of the adventure cruise carrier. The maritime safety responsibility focus of Finnish adventure cruise ships follows the future development of the Arctic. Its responsibility points are combined with the protection of humanistic features of the ecological environment in its own region, and its environmental protection model of the sea and land integration extends the country’s maritime rights. Norway mainly breaks through the flag state jurisdiction of the cruise ship by promoting the principle of territorial jurisdiction through the Norwegian Criminal Responsibility Standard of the captains and crews, so as to form the declaration of the right to speak in the Arctic region of Norway. The focus of the responsibility for maritime safety of Danish adventure cruises lies in the geographical identification of specific areas and the definition of legal risks, which has provided factual evidence for the manifestation of the sovereignty of the country, and defined the country’s right to speak on Arctic affairs through the legal risks of specific regions. In addition to the traditional marine environmental pollution damage, the scope of maritime safety also includes the upstream part of the shores of adventure cruises. Sweden achieves its Arctic claims primarily through international cruise liability standards for adventure cruise ships. The responsibility of the Swedish adventure cruise lies in the characteristics of local resources and environment and the international treaty regulation of polar bear protection, so as to achieve environmental protection and sustainable development of domestic economic interests. The focus of Iceland’s adventure cruise ships lies in the risk-sharing mechanism of navigational responsibility under the background of freedom of navigation in the Arctic waterway and the differentiated management of the original ecological natural environment to realize national interest consideration. The freedom of navigation it claims has the attributes of national interests.
To sum up, the value of the Arctic adventure cruise national responsibility system and the integration of key responsibilities and interests are different. The state of coupling national interests forms the inconsistencies in the logical starting point of the responsibility system, presenting a reasonable gap under the presentation of the sovereignty of Arctic states. This would lead to the divergence of rights remedy channels, the different value levels of the integration of navigation safety interests, the inconsistency of the logical starting point of the responsibility system of Arctic expedition cruise ships, and the difficulty of forming a regional regularization regime of liability systems. Details are presented in Table 1.
The chaotic nature of the maritime safety target value system of Arctic expedition cruise ships, the legal conflict of maritime safety behaviour rules, and the reasonable gap of responsibility methods require us to return to the essence of the UNCLOS to build maritime safety, to construct the big channel behaviour regulation system of the shared future community, and to create the community co-governance responsibility system of Arctic stakeholders, so as to realize the connection of fragmentation of maritime security from point to surface and form an internally logical and harmonious Arctic adventure cruise maritime security system.
A. Bridging the Specific Orientation of Maritime Safety Guided by the UNCLOS Rules System
The practice of Arctic maritime security governance should uphold the social co-governance value concept, which is not a product of geopolitics, but rather acts to promote the well-being of all mankind and nature. This kind of correct and necessary regulation of Arctic maritime security governance is neither a monopoly of political sovereignty power nor the proliferation of powers for disputes over commercial interests of international organizations. Instead, Hobbes said that the authority created the law. Authority should be a balanced Arctic adventure maritime safety regulation system agreed by the Arctic states between coastal states and flag states. The current status of environmental protection supervision model for adventure cruises and the nationalization of environmental protection in specific regions divide the authority of environmental protection. The focus of the environmental responsibility of adventure cruises is consistent with national sovereignty, which leads to the inherent disorder of environmental protection authority. The attribution paradigm and the system of attribution are used to realize the co-governance model of Arctic adventure cruise ship’s environmental protection area.
First of all, the UNCLOS Maritime Security is specifically geared to bridge a balanced mechanism and the predicament of maritime security in the regional gaming. Except that the US has not been ratified to sign the UNCLOS, the remaining seven countries are parties to the UNCLOS. Therefore, the UNCLOS, the Marine Charter, has an authoritative basis. Although the the International Conventions about Maritime Safety and the UNCLOS are not affiliated, as far as maritime safety figuration is concerned, the safety of maritime navigation and environment constitute the specific basis for consideration of the right of innocent passage of territorial seas and the right of transit passage in the exclusive economic zone. The balance mechanism provided by the UNCLOS is helpful to balance the dilemma of the Arctic maritime security power monopoly and power diffusion. Article 21(1) on the innocent passage right system of the territorial sea state guides on navigational safety and environmental safety, and the Transit System in article 42(1) forms the overview of maritime safety of the coastal countries. Accordingly, articles 94(3) and 94(4) have regulated on the navigation technology safety and the standard of crew’s qualification, and articles 211(2), (4) and (5) of the environmental safety regulation of the flag state have constituted the flag state’s maritime safety origin system in the UNCLOS. Guided by the UNCLOS balance mechanism as the authority, a sovereign transfer of the maritime security power monopoly in the Arctic region and the organization’s responsibility for the proliferation of powers (the flag state responsibility) will be established to achieve a specific balance of maritime security.
Secondly, there is a need to build a sea-land integration of the frozen areas for the protection of the Arctic adventure cruise environment. Article 234 of the UNCLOS about frozen areas is used as a starting point to construct maritime safety value targets in frozen areas. Taking the freedom of the UNCLOS as the logical starting point, it needs to construct the realistic traceability of the freedom of navigation in the Arctic ice region of adventure cruises, reduce the influence of political wrestling in the Arctic, construct a regional and standardized system of safety and seaworthiness of Arctic expedition cruise routes, and realize common but differentiated principles of administrative charges. Russian commercial icebreaking model and Finnish port channel fee system model could be regarded as the safety feature of Arctic adventure cruise navigation to improve the standardized system. Reducing the impact of political wrestling in the Arctic through the choice of the commercial operation mode of the adventure cruise is regarded as the solution path. Based on the special conditions of frozen areas and the incomparability and irreversibility of environmental damage, the pursuit of the principle of freedom of navigation in ice areas can be used to achieve the transfer of national sovereignty, and to achieve a common safety foundation guided by the value of freedom of navigation and environmental safety.
Finally, the shared future of the Arctic community realizes the unity of the value of navigation safety and environmental safety, and eliminates the choice of superiority. Arctic adventure cruise maritime safety regularization system is not the conquest of lower rulers by the higher rulers, but the thinking about the maritime security of the Arctic adventure itself. It is the thinking about the shared future of the Arctic community, which is what the concept of China’s Arctic Policy White Paper of 2017 reflects, and is also the prudence of global strategic development. The concept of the Shared Future of the Arctic Community, which is based on respecting the sovereignty of the eight Arctic states, would be included as the foundation of the common interests of mankind. Under this concept, navigational safety and environmental safety represent the entire future of Arctic maritime security, and it concerns all humankind or the entire future development of the Arctic and the need for intergenerational justice. The North Pole is no longer the North Pole of the Arctic nations, but the North Pole of stakeholders (all human beings), breaking the traditional predicament of maritime security nationalization, reducing the sovereignty of navigation safety, and strengthening the cooperative nature of environmental safety. The navigational safety and environmental safety of adventure cruise ships have the integrated community attribute based on the common interests of human beings, and intergenerational justice highlights its game of breaking the rank of value.
B. Design of the Attribution Model for Maritime Safety Behaviour of Arctic Adventure Cruises
The legal conflict of the attribution paradigm of the Arctic adventure cruise safety management system and the reasonable gap of the nationalization of the attribution system require the shared future community mechanism to achieve the goal of the regularization of regional governance. The goal of regional regularization is to connect the fragmented navigation safety element nodes of various countries through the community of fate mechanism to achieve a point-to-face series, so as to achieve an inherently logical and harmonious Arctic adventure cruise navigation safety system.
Firstly, the human-oriented concept should be adopted to implement the maritime safety navigation rules of Arctic adventure cruise ships, and the principle of sovereignty transference should be adopted to establish a regional rule system for the big channel system of Arctic expedition cruise navigation safety, reduce the cost of rules, and break the existing route system security of expedition cruise ship countries’ barriers to planning. The Arctic Council, the CLIA organizations and the IMO agencies need to play their roles to reduce the cost of regulations, and remove the national obstacles to the existing cruise route safety planning of adventure cruise ships. The assimilation trend of the regulatory model in the big channel system of the Arctic needs to be established, using the CLIA adventure cruise ship’s national regulatory notification mechanism as the starting point, seeking the internal conventions of the adventure cruise maritime safety regulatory system, and logically realizing maritime safety benefits within the management model commonality. Break through national conflicts with the management method of maritime safety informatization based on the big channel system, build a standardized mechanism for uploading and using maritime safety information in Arctic waterways based on the Canadian NORDREG system, and stipulate grey water area mechanisms for sensitive information of different countries to protect the core information protection of Arctic national security. Take advantage of the previous possession of maritime safety information by the Russian Northern Airlines, the US Coast Guard, the Danish Polar Center, the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat and other institutions, to achieve a transparent maritime information sharing mechanism, and a systematic identification mechanism that distinguishes between legal risks of special area (time) or specific area (regional) which is in line with the management models of Iceland and Norway. And through the big channel system’s maritime safety informatization evaluation mechanism to achieve a specific regional approval system in Denmark and Iceland’s transparent approval system of the sovereign jurisdiction at a special time, force them to make sovereign transfers on the Arctic Channel Maritime Safety Rules or be reserved as a feature. Through the integration of the supervision model, the basic system of safety and seaworthiness of the Arctic adventure cruise’s big channel system has been formed, and the characteristics of each country have been beneficially absorbed.
Secondly, the humanistic concept realizes the power-based proliferation of maritime security rules, which requires the greatest common divisor and seeks common ground while shelving differences. The origins of Arctic adventure cruises’ maritime safety protection of passengers’ rights and interests have common ground. The protection of the rights and interests of passengers serves as the starting point to realize the ice area navigation rules and the regionalization system of ice class standards. Specifically, it can be based on the existing ice navigation rules in Canada and the Finnish ice class standard, combine the icebreaking capabilities of Russia, the US, and China to achieve scientific and standardized assessment of maritime safety in ice navigation, and explore administrative charges for ice class services to form a standardization model, to achieve the common but differentiated principle of administrative charges. Take the Russian commercial icebreaking model and the Finnish port channel fee system as the model or as a safety feature of the Arctic adventure cruise to improve the standardization system, and take the commercial operation of the expedition cruise choice as a solution path. The Arctic Expedition Cruise Maritime Safety Technical Standard is supposed to draw on the American technical standards, the Iceland CLIA Technical Regulation Standards, and the Swedish Polar Scientific Research Experience to make the Arctic Adventure Cruise Maritime Safety Rules complemented by the Arctic Ship Navigation Technical Regulation Standards. At the same time, the IMO is supposed to establish a special reminder mechanism for behaviour requirements for captains and crews with the Norwegian Standard. The CLIA should play a coordinating role to prompt the navigation system of navigation rules in the electronic ice area, in order to realize the power proliferation of maritime safety rules and avoid Monroeism.
Finally, the Arctic adventure cruise’s maritime security mechanism is supposed to build an integrated sea-land mechanism for the frozen area to assimilate the regional management model. Based on the environmental protection of frozen area in article 234 of the UNCLOS, the CLIA functions as an association to build a manual of maritime safety behaviour for adventure cruise ships in the Arctic region, and implements a national reminder mechanism for the regulation and control of maritime safety of adventure cruise ships, as well as special rules and publicity mechanism for special areas through the manual. The Arctic Adventure Cruise Line’s differentiation model of maritime safety regulation should be implemented; the environmental protection nationalized assessment mechanism of the adventure cruise which is similar to the business environment is supposed to be realized, so as to form the Arctic Community Governance Model for the spread of maritime security power in the Arctic region. It also needs to realize the mechanism of coupling the national interests of maritime safety of the Arctic adventure cruises with the interests of cruise companies, and combine the protection of the maritime safety paradigm with the protection of characteristics under the mechanism of the Arctic interest community. The sea and land integration model in the Arctic region is in line with the Finnish environmental protection model of sea and land integration, the Danish specific region protection model of ecological resource management, and Russian claims to extend beyond northern waters and the jurisdiction of the US offshore waters, through the fixation of the sea and land integration model behaviour manual, the formation of regular control over the definition of Russian Arctic Waters, Canadian Arctic Waters and special safe areas, and a strong countermeasure to the US long-arm jurisdiction. This could avoid the instability of the Danish administrative order of regional identification, and define the unidentified areas outside Iceland’s Bering Strait. It forces the formation of the sea and land integration through soft law mode of the Maritime Security Manual.
C. The Design of Reasonable Gap in Maritime Safety Responsibility of Arctic Adventure Cruise Ships
First, based on the Arctic Stakeholders Theory, the point of the contact for strengthening the maritime safety responsibility mechanism of expeditionary cruise ships will be combined from point to surface to form a joint governance responsibility system for Arctic communities. It should take the freedom of navigation of the UNCLOS as the logical starting point, construct the realistic traceability of the freedom of navigation in the Arctic ice area of adventure cruises, and reduce the influence of political wrestling in the Arctic. Adventure cruises are mainly for out-of-boat adventures, not for on-board play. The differences from ordinary cruises determine their special industry management system. Taking the Arctic adventure cruise industry management system as the starting point to implement the maritime and land integration maritime safety responsibility regulation mechanism, the carriers could limit their liability no matter in what kind of business model. This is corresponding with the maritime safety responsibility regime in the traditional conventions. The responsibility system of adventure cruise navigation safety is based on the navigation safety stakeholders. It constructs the risk point reminder mechanism of the Arctic national responsibility system, follows the role of the Arctic Council on the basis of national sovereignty, and uses the frozen area in article 234 of the UNCLOS. The basic principles of the group are at the core, to realize the frozen area’s maritime security responsibility integration mechanism, and alleviate the nationalization predicament of Arctic adventure cruise ship responsibility based on the balance of interests and compromises through the intervention of stakeholder countries and non-governmental organizations.
Second, there is a nationalized trend that the commercialized insurance mechanism resolves the maritime liability for adventure cruise ships. A system of joint liability systems for maritime compensation liability and flag state liability and for the cruise country where the cruise ship is located needs to be built in case of personal injury and death of adventure cruise passengers and property loss. It could avoid Russia’s simple flag state liability guarantee system and dissolve the Norwegian captain and crew’s strict liability system risks. This could also establish the American liability which punishes environmental pollution by commercial insurance means for adventure cruise companies, alleviate the practical dilemma of the spread of American liability rules, avoid the risk of joint liability of post-guarantee liability in Finland, and avoid Denmark’s extension of its fragmentation of the domestic responsibility system. On the basis of respecting national sovereignty, the CLIA needs to play the coordination role to build the Arctic adventure cruise community, based on the reality of maritime security responsibility in Iceland and Sweden, and the responsibility system for the expansion of jurisdictions such as the criminal responsibility in Norway and Finland, combing with the characteristics of the Swedish environmental protection code. Relevant countries of the Arctic stakeholders can be constructed through insurance mechanisms to prevent risks of navigational safety accidents and reduce the footprint of sovereignty in the Arctic. In terms of responsibility construction, the Arctic Council advocates an integrated power-responsibility mechanism, constructs a national responsibility path and framework for the Arctic waterway coastal state control mechanism, and improves the right relief system of the International Court of Justice mechanism.
Third, the inter-generational justice of Arctic maritime security is a guide for the construction of a maritime security responsibility arbitration mechanism to achieve a community focus of interests. The Arctic frozen area is a geographical and cultural heritage in human history, and it is irreversible. The Arctic adventure cruise community requires the coexistence of government and collective autonomy, and the coexistence of formal and informal rules. It aims to the combination of the Arctic state’s responsibility and sovereignty cut-in, to establish a responsibility remedy mechanism for the adventure cruise party and a judicial arbitration mechanism for the Arctic ecological environment in order to realize the coupling of safety interests.
IV. CONCLUSION
Although the regional regularization of Arctic adventure cruise ship is in an urgent need to be constructed in reality, there would be value conflict in the inherent logical system during the construction process, and legal conflict of nationalization of maritime security behaviour rules. The specific issue of the reasonable gap in the maritime security responsibility paradigm is due to the weakening of the shared future community concept of maritime security in Arctic adventure cruise ships and the manifestation of the concept of national sovereignty. In view of this dilemma, it is necessary to take the UNCLOS maritime safety rule system as a logical starting point to construct the regional goal of frozen areas in article 234 of the UNCLOS as the guidance, so as to form a big channel system of maritime safety zone system based on the transference of national sovereignty surrender. Constructing a responsibility system based on the stakeholder theory of Arctic adventure cruise ships to implement the inter-generational justice of Arctic maritime security would conform to the concept of the China’s Arctic Policy White Paper that is the wise way to achieve further construction of the power of discourse in the regionalization of maritime security of Arctic adventure cruise ships for China.
