The growing importance of the Arctic correlates with the research on various aspects of this region's development, including the political and legal cooperation between different states, primarily the Arctic countries. Modern studies consider in detail the issues of legal regulation of the Arctic territories' status. An interdisciplinary approach is widely used in the study of this issue. The meeting of the representatives of the Arctic states that took place in Rovniemi, Finland in 1989 established a political and legal phenomenon named after this place. Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) was adopted as part of the Rovaniemi process and provided the basis for the Arctic Council. However, the historical aspect of the «Rovaniemi process» and the implementation of this strategy's elements in the participating countries' national legislation have not received adequate coverage. This article is aimed to fill this gap. Within the framework of historical and legal analysis, we examine the content and significance of M.S. Gorbachev's ideas voiced by him in 1987 in Murmansk, as well as the opinions of researchers working on this topic. The provisions of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy are considered in the context of their implementation in the legal system of the Republic of Finland. Particular attention is given to the legislative acts, which demonstrate the influence of the Rovaniemi process to the greatest degree, including the Constitution of the Republic of Finland, the Criminal Code and special environmental acts. In addition to specialized laws, the authors consider certain aspects of the contents of constitutional acts in their correlation with universally recognized rules of international law and issues of legal regulation of civil relations that have «Arctic» content. The example of Finland's legal development shows the direct impact of the Rovaniemi process on national Arctic legislation, which indicates that there are no objective obstacles to the implementation of declarative acts in national legislation, but raises the issue of subjective barriers that may exist in other Arctic countries.
|
