"Since time immemorial, the Arctic has been a white spot on the map - an ocean that was largely inaccessible for humanity. Until the very recent past, humanity was compelled to accept this inaccessibility, plain and simple. Literally, the Arctic has been white due to a metres thick permanent ice layer covering the entire region. Yet, for some time now, more and more colour has been added to the region: due to climate change, the layer of ice is melting at an alarmingly rapid pace, offering multiple options for human impact on a hitherto virtually untouched natural environment. It is therefore not surprising that the vision of new shipping routes, enhanced research, military activities and profitable economic exploitation has brought the region to the top of the international political and, eventually, legal agenda. Emerging conflicts of interest of various stakeholders are almost inevitable and call for new and possibly innovative forms of governance in a region that has hardly known any before. Predominantly part of the high seas, and thus beyond the reach of national sovereignty, for this area such a regulatory regime can only be established at the international level. Despite its harsh and hostile conditions, the Arctic Ocean is home to a great variety of living resources, which offer promising economic prospects for the future. New possibilities for access might enable fisheries, should there be sufficient fish stocks. As, due to the freedom of the high seas, the high seas portion of the Arctic Ocean is originally "accessible to the commercial fishing fleets of any jurisdiction", all States interested could take up such opportunities. This in turn bears the risk of overfishing, which is already a considerable problem in international waters. In the last 10-15 years, one-third of global fish stocks have been constantly overexploited, and two-thirds are in decline. Additionally, one must bear in mind that the Arctic Ocean is a unique and delicate environment, and much of its functioning is not yet fully understood. Little is known about prospective effects of climate change on ecologically important species, and the information available mostly stems from short-term laboratory experiments. Interactions of different actors, activities and species can therefore not be investigated to a sufficient extent. Increased effort needs to be put into understanding the ecosystem and fish and their health in the central Arctic Ocean (CAO) when developing new fishing grounds. Moreover, the conquest of new territories naturally leads to conflicts between littoral States and other international actors such as other States, communities and indigenous peoples who have an interest in the area. In principle, several approaches of governance are possible. Regulating a specific area could follow a strict multilateral approach or a unilateral one, relying on coordinated but sovereign action. Another option, often chosen for fisheries, is the establishment of a governance regime. Further, with specific regard to Arctic fisheries, in order to prevent devastating impacts on the Arctic ecosystem caused by excessive or illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, several options are conceivable. These range from a fishing ban to a long-term oriented cooperative strategy. However, the introduction of a regulation usually also entails the restriction of a freedom, in this case the freedom of the high seas. Since the Arctic is one of the last largely untouched marine areas and the CAOF Agreement regulates future fisheries in this area, it could herald the end of the freedom of the high seas. In addition, new activities causing changes in the CAO environment will most likely affect weather and climate worldwide. Therefore, actions need to be taken with utmost care and extreme caution. Here, a proactive approach is considered helpful and appropriate"--
