The Arctic Circle is a wonderfully ambiguous area that is host to a variety of wildlife, geographical features, and cultures. But have you ever wondered how it’s all governed? Well, unless you’re a geopolitics geek like me, the answer is probably no – but I’m going to tell you anyway.
At the most basic level the Arctic’s sovereignty is decided under UNCLOS or the UN convention on the Law of the Sea (the UN sure does love their acronyms). There are 8 signatories of UNCLOS that are Arctic border states (Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States (via Alaska)) and they each have economic rights to an area of ocean which spans from their land to 200 miles offshore (Article 57 of UNCLOS). Within these areas each state can create an “Exclusive Economic Zone”, as set out in Article 58 of the convention allowing the state to control all the gas and oil in the area. These natural resources found in the Arctic provide significant wealth on the global trade market for the controller state, causing jealousy within the states who do not border the Arctic. There are twelve other countries (including the United Kingdom) who are observers and are permitted to carry out expeditions in the Arctic, for tourism or science, but they cannot profit from the abundant natuaral resources. Subsequently, these twelve countries argue that because Article 136 of UNCLOS states that the sea is “common heritage of mankind”, the Arctic should therefore be freely governable, and its resources open to everyone like Antarctica is, under the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.
So far, only states recognised by the UN have been mentioned, but what about the indigenous groups who live in the Arctic? Do the individuals and their groups not get a say? Well, in short, indigenous groups have the same rights to the Arctic as the country they reside in and are protected under the “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. Each individual country then has its own policies as what control an Indigenous group has over the land be it through special permits to live there, being a part of decision-making councils or owning the land outright. In Finland, The Finnmark Act acknowledges that the Sami people have acquired rights to land and resources in the Finnmark region. Therefore, they also have a right to be heard in matters related to resource management within their territories which gives the Sami Parliament a rather significant role. In Canada, the Inuit population are supported through laws and treaties that set out their territorial rights over Arctic waters, ice, and the resources found there. However, many Inuit view these agreements as a joint ownership of the land rather than full extinguishment of Canadian control. Overall, respect for Indigenous territorial rights in the Arctic has improved greatly since the UN declaration but with climate change reducing ice coverage and exposing new oil deposits, this progress could be at risk from greedy corporations or Arctic states.
As in the rest of the world, after land is divided up there are many sovereignty and territorial disputes which threaten the previous agreements. In the Arctic, motivation for these disputes is usually centered around a desire to safeguard military and commercial shipping routes, a desire to own the natural riches (gas and oil) or a fear that others may gain what you lose. In the past few years, there have been disputes in the Arctic circle between the USA and Russia over the Bering Strait and between Canada and Denmark over the Hans Islands. Another looming conflict is the predicted “New Great Game”, which could take place in the Arctic for the oil and gas reserves by the expansion of icebreakers and oil rigs. However, this “new” version will hopefully be different to the events in the Middle East, India and Afghanistan in the 19-20th Century as the Arctic Council is composed of mostly democratic countries with international laws regulating pollution, territory, and fishing. Although it will suffice for now, the current system of EEZ’s will need to change as cooperation is needed to tackle the dangerous 5.5 million miles of ocean which is harmed by terrorism, natural disasters, and smuggling. With the melting of sea ice allowing more shipping routes to become available these issues will only become more frequent, meaning that specialised workforces must be instituted to avoid repeats of events like the “cod wars” between the UK and Iceland as well as to protect the waterways from illegal use. So, although the sovereignty of the Arctic has been decided, for now it must be an organic issue that is developed and patched up as new problems arise.
So, to sum up, the Arctic is controlled under the UN convention on the Law of the Sea which permits Arctic border states control over the Arctic Ocean around their country whilst indigenous groups’ claims are subject to the laws of the individual countries they reside in. The importance of the Arctic region in global politics is forever multiplying as the demand for oil increases, especially during the current oil and gas crisis, and the want for the new shipping routes. Therefore, we can be certain that the sovereignty of the Arctic will evolve constantly with slowly mounting stakes.
