Retrospective analysis proposes updates to legal regulations and methods for assessing damage from emergencies in the Arctic.
The relevance of the work performed is predetermined by the insufficiency and contradictions of the legal framework for assessing and calculating the damage (harm) caused by hazardous natural phenomena and technological processes in the Russian Arctic. The work includes a retrospective, comparative, and contrasting analysis of the current legal and regulatory documents in the designated research area. Based on the results of the work, 20 expert opinions (expert assessments) have been prepared by specialists on the sufficiency of legal acts in the subject area, based on the systematization, generalization, and analysis of 128 legal acts in the field of legal regulation and assessment of damage (harm), as well as the analysis of competent opinions and positions in this subject area by 65 federal executive authorities, scientific organizations, and scientific and educational institutions (based on the results of directed requests and motivated responses). Based on the expert opinions prepared, motivated proposals have been formulated to update existing legal acts and develop new methods, rules, guidelines, and recommendations, as well as standards for forecasting and assessing the social, economic, and environmental damage (harm) caused by the negative consequences of emergencies in relation to the specific factors, conditions, and features of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goloveiko et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: