Abstract The Arctic Marginal Ice Zone (MIZ) is a highly dynamic transitional region between open ocean and dense drift ice, lending itself well to dynamic management and conservation approaches. This article conducts a case study on the possibility of designating dynamic area-based management tools (ABMTs) within the MIZ’s specific ecological, institutional, and regulatory context. The article has two main aims. First, it assesses the feasibility of operationalizing dynamic management and conservation strategies in an international and transboundary setting. Second, it evaluates the capacity of existing legal and institutional frameworks governing the Arctic MIZ to accommodate such an approach. The analysis is structured around the conceptual framework of Klerk, Heinrich, and Primicerio, which defines dynamic ABMTs through three interrelated dimensions: spatial, normative, and institutional dynamism. A hypothetical dynamic ABMT derived from this framework is used as an analytical lens to assess the degree of dynamism embedded in current governance arrangements. The study maps the regional governance landscape, identifying the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Seabed Authority as key actors with sectoral competence in the study area, and highlighting the OSPAR Commission as a central forum for cross-sectoral coordination. An examination of the procedural mechanisms and decision-making pathways within these bodies reveals limited but identifiable capacity for adaptive spatial management. However, institutional dynamism remains weak. Governance arrangements in the Arctic MIZ prioritize legal certainty and stability, with multiannual decision cycles that are poorly aligned with rapidly changing environmental conditions. This persistent temporal mismatch constrains effective dynamic management. The study concludes that the viability of dynamic ABMTs in the Arctic is determined less by ecological knowledge or technological capability than by the development of governance systems capable of timely, flexible, and coordinated decision-making.
Bastiaan E. Klerk (Sun,) studied this question.