With the end of cold-war and the formation of a new geopolitical order, emerged a new paradigm, far from the thought or conscience of mankind until it was made possible. This new battlefield emerged in the extreme North of the Globe, The Arctic. Before this point, the Arctic was merely a frozen land with a broad scope of scientific exploration but as battlefields became smaller and nations got equipped with more technology, the Arctic served as the region of geopolitical tensions. Over the past few decades, it became a hotspot for a display of power by the Arctic- 5 states which include Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and the United States Of America.
Each of these states started mobilizing their military to establish dominance on their sovereign land but what appeared to be a claim by them was instead a question that no one was able to answer for centuries. It must be understood that mobilizing the military in the region does not necessarily indicate a shift in the foreign policy of a state but a struggle for resources has always prompted a state to commit an act of war which turned into some of the renowned conflicts.
The Arctic is no different in this sense, just another piece of land contested amongst many for its resources and sovereignty. But unlike any other major conflict, the Arctic conflict potentially lacks the foundations because of the insufficiency of evidence about claims and conflicting facts put forward by states. The bigger problem is that before the Cold War, the Arctic was isolated for the majority part in history and did not gain geopolitical significance until recently. Since the question remains one, “Who does the Arctic belong to?”, the true conflict is for the answers that each state is trying to answer.
Why Arctic?
As mentioned earlier, the Arctic had no relevance to geopolitics before a certain time, and when exactly it became of relevance is hard to say, perhaps when it was thoroughly thought by states that there is no other place on Earth left where there are not multiple territorial claims, but the significance of arctic is beyond that. Nations are engaged in a contemporary gold rush for the Arctic’s unclaimed land, natural resources, and strategic location as the region’s perilous polar ice sheets melt.
Countries are striving to get jurisdiction over unclaimed ocean and land territory, which is outside their control, to carry out activities like resource extraction and trade routes, as a result of the polar ice caps’ rapid disappearance. The Arctic is a strong strategic location from which to project military might because of its location sandwiched between North America and Eurasia.
According to a 2018 National Aeronautics and Space Administration study, the Arctic has lost 21,000 square miles of sea ice year over the previous 50 years, providing a greater area for cultivation and management on the shrinking landmass. The capacity to colonize, exploit resources, and build military outposts in the Arctic has granted governments control over the region, making legal rights and claims over it extremely valuable.
Nations’ thirst for the region’s natural resources, particularly natural gas, which accounts for over a quarter of the world’s energy consumption, is one factor driving the fight over land claims. The majority of the world’s natural gas reserves have already been discovered and used, but nations are fighting for control of the Arctic’s enormous untapped supply. According to estimations from the US Geological Survey, the area has 1,699 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and other fuels, which is three times more than the oil reserves of the US and equal to the total of Russia’s reserves.
More than 400 oil and gas fields have been found north of the Arctic Circle as a consequence of hydrocarbon exploration in onshore regions of Canada, Russia, and Alaska. Every day, almost 2.6 million barrels of fossil fuels are extracted from the Arctic regions of Canada and Russia. With intentions to grant the first licenses as early as 2023, Norway, which is sometimes touted as a poster child for progressive ecological policies, began the process in January of opening up sections of its extended continental shelf to mineral production and exploration. The potential for exploitation, which includes oil and gas, rare earth metals, fishing, faster transportation routes, and even—remarkably—the growing of foodstuffs, has Arctic nations, non-Arctic states, and companies licking their tongues.
Apart from its current possibilities, the Arctic upholds the possibility of future economic expansion for states but not in the current condition. The only way arctic states can benefit in the future is if the ice melts and creates a channel for ships that will connect Asia to Europe more conveniently. Both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage have seen brief ice-free conditions since late summer of 2007. The Arctic may undergo a total late-season melt-out within the next ten years, which would result in the irreversible loss of the multiyear ice.
Shipping along the NSR is expected to double this year as a result of ice melting and the increasing frequency of ships traveling along the route. Ships that have traveled along the NSR have experienced significant cost savings, according to shipping companies and proponents of more activity in the area, who also forecast a sharp increase in Arctic shipping. By 2030, bulk carrier tonnage might expand tenfold from 2 million tons to 20 million tons, and the volume of oil and gas is expected to grow similarly, reaching 40 million tons annually by the end of the decade. Two percent of international shipping might be redirected to the Arctic by 2030, increasing to five percent by 2050, according to Canadian and American marine experts.
A transpolar corridor connecting East Asia to Europe and the eastern coast of North America is opening up as the ice cover melts. Additionally, there will be unprecedented exposure of the ice barrier that formerly shielded Russia’s northern shore. Protecting Russia’s northern border as the ice sheet melts is a major national security problem as the country makes up 53% of the Arctic coastline. What looks like a gain to states is a loss to the Arctic as a region.
The Problem
As we look at the problem of the Arctic from an outsider’s perspective, we might wonder why not just create a binding agreement that all states abide by and do not break but these agreements themselves are a problem. Historically, there has been confusion regarding the Arctic as a piece of land or as an ocean which led to no specific treaties being made for the Arctic. Currently, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea serves as the sole instrument to resolve any territorial issues arriving in the Arctic but the clauses of this law contradict themselves.
The substantive range of the UNCLOS treaty is broader than any other lawmaking treaty, containing provisions on “defense and international security, trade and communications, management of living and nonliving resources, scientific research, preservation of cultural heritage, etc”. Under UNCLOS, the sovereignty of a coastal state extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters.
A state can lawfully extend its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its coast and have to submit to the Commission on the limits of the Continental shelf. There are several limitations to this submission but imagine the arctic states making submissions to extend their continental shelf only to realize that they overlap which creates another conflict situation.
The states are in a unique situation because as much of the Arctic has never been surveyed. Amidst the confusion, comes an opinion that the Arctic should be declared as an independent region like Antarctica but this would make the states lose a huge portion of their land which no state would want. There are eight Arctic states, but only five have coastlines bordering the Arctic Ocean.
Each of these five states has staked a legal claim to territory in the Arctic based on historical claims of discovery and use, effective occupation, national identity, native use, and scientific data. The nations’ overlapping claims and varied legal positions support the need for a new legal framework under an Arctic treaty. The issues arising in the Arctic, due to its unique icy makeup, cannot all be addressed within the UNCLOS framework, whose principles and legal norms were developed for the governance of open water, not glacial masses.
The Way Forward
A new international governance under an Arctic treaty could be the answer that everyone is looking forward to and this could be done in three ways: 1) Divide the Arctic among the states based on some formula agreed upon by states; 2) direct that the territorial division will be determined under the UNCLOS procedure; or 3) Like the Antarctic Treaty, freeze all state territorial claims. There are some obvious challenges to these recommendations but a UNCLOS treaty is merely complicating the situation and the Arctic is turning into a big muscle showground where Russia can be seen taking an advantage. The most favorable approach is to freeze all claims to Arctic territory, at least until there has been more scientific study of the region.
Under the terms of the treaty, states should make genuine extensive efforts to map the seafloor, which would resolve many of the conflicting territorial claims. As was the case with Antarctica, States would agree that scientific exploration, peace, and preservation of the fragile ecosystems of the Arctic region are more important than their claims to sovereignty. This treaty should also govern the permissible activity within the region. The treaty must clearly state the acceptable level of resource extraction until a permanent solution is figured out. Currently, all Arctic states must abide by the existing international frameworks on conserving the environment and make genuine efforts to save the Arctic.
Furthermore, if the treaty is to allow some resource extraction, it should also address who profits from those resources. The Arctic states alone are not rightful heirs to the riches of the Arctic but also the indigenous Arctic populations. If states are not able to multilaterally reach an agreement then they must advance bilingual efforts for cooperation in the region. In 2005, Canada and Denmark reached an agreement to manage Hans Island. Ultimately, the Arctic Council must expand its scope beyond individualistic pursuits and preserve the region as a whole.
“What happens in the North is for the states to decide and the world to see. If the Arctic turns into another battleground, it will turn out no better than the current battlegrounds.”
Exciting news! Storify News is now on WhatsApp Channels. Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news! Click here!
Popular Searches:Who Owns MSNBC, Who owned Fox News?, Amazon Hub Counter, How Much Protein is in 50 Gm Soya Chunks?, Macaw Parrot Price In India, One-Punch Man Season 3, PBN WebEditor, Adin Ross net worth, Tyson Fury Net worth, Jann Mardenborough net worth, Barry Sanders Net Worth, Jelly Roll Net Worth, Gabriel Iglesias Net Worth, Mpox Virus Outbreak, How Many Times has Kamala Harris been Married?, How Many Times has Putin been Married?, How Many Times Has The US Constitution Been Amended?, How Tall is Kevin Hart?, Are Will Cain and Pete Hegseth friends?, Prince Narula’s Digital PayPal Revolution, How to Kill Tooth Pain Nerve in 3 seconds Permanently, What was News Reporter 7.5: The Frat Boy Photographer Controversy, Mpox Clade 1b Variant.
