Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 301

301 Arctic Yearbook 2015 timid spillover can be attributed to what Kathrin Keil calls the “exclusive club” principle, or, put more directly, “the eight Arctic states will be the ones most active in their Arctic areas, and it will be they who are most directly affected by any activities, possible accidents and environmental threats” (Keil 2014). This is not to advocate that only the Arctic eight should play an active role in Arctic affairs; rather, it must be acknowledged that the first on scene will always be those states holding territory in the region. Thus, within the “exclusive club” of Arctic states we see a narrow topography of issues where issues align for all states. Returning to Mitrany’s words, “We have already suggested that not all interests are common to all, and that the common interests do not concern all countries in the same degree” (Mitrany 1992: 501). Mitrany’s point highlights a weakness in the Arctic governance structure today; there are not nearly enough cooperation contact points for the Arctic states to see that the A-level issues at hand are uniting, and not dividing, topics. Regional Seas Agreement One of the more creative solutions that has surfaced as a potential Arctic governance realignment is a regional seas agreement. The concept of a regional seas agree Y[