What competing Arctic maritime claims tell about the effectiveness of maritime legislation in the High North
Executive Summary
The ability to claim up to 350 miles of nautical sovereignty through UNCLOS rulings has caused Arctic states to invest heavily in research and development in order to put forward maritime claims
The preference to manage rather than settle Arctic maritime disputes leaves the region vulnerable to assertive state action
Melting sea ice creates new and increasingly pressing issues of governance and coordination within the region
Continuing disputes in the Lomonosov Ridge and Beaufort Sea show no sign of coming to an end
Although many feel that the potential for conflict is limited due to the historic lack of feasibility to utilise the Arctic for economic gain, changing climate conditions can significantly alter this peace
A changing landscape
It is no secret that the Arctic is melting. Anthropogenically influenced climate change has seen the High North warm at four times the rate of the rest of the world, with Arctic ice having declined by over 2 million square kilometres since the 1970s. Such drastic change brings key new issues of governance and ownership into question in a region with little pre-existing governance due to a lack of historic contention.
Current Arctic maritime mechanisms
The ever-growing Arctic Sea is currently party to similar maritime rules as other bodies of water. Countries with a coastline to the Sea have a right to a 200 nautical mile ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ through which economic activities and resource extraction can occur. A 1982 UNCLOS signing added the potential for these zones to be extended up to 350 miles through the proof of continental shelves, deeming this to be a ‘natural extension’ of land territories. Such rulings require coordination through UNCLOS.
The potential for extending maritime borders is an attractive prospect for states; although the ruling does not give rights to exclude foreign actors from the domain, it provides states sovereign rights to resources. Spurred on by ice melt and an increasing knowledge of the resource richness of the Arctic, many players such as Russia and the United States have invested heavily into scientific research surrounding their EEZ’s as well as continental ice shelves.
It is important to note that current maritime rulings do not prevent conflict from arising. Although conflict settlement and maritime cooperation provide positive-sum gains through the better implementations of project and resource development, countries do not want to be seen as ‘giving away’ rights to resources, instead often adopting to ‘manage’ disputes rather than settling them.
Key Arctic maritime disputes
The Lomonosov Ridge
One of the most famous contested maritime areas within the Arctic takes shape in the 1,200-mile-long Lomonosov Ridge. The ridge runs across the near centre of the Arctic Sea, providing potential sovereign actors with the opportunity to expand influence over the North Pole, and is touted to hold up to 90 billion barrels of oil.
The ridge is claimed by three competing actors: Russia, Canada & Denmark, with each country's efforts to prove the area as being an extension of their continental shelves being repeatedly rejected by UNCLOS. The conflicting claim shows no sign of being solved, with the undersea terrain of the ridge still yet to be fully mapped out. However, this has not stopped states from acting assertively, with Russia famously causing international outrage by placing their flag on the seabed of the North Pole. The lack of action taken against Russia by the international community only spurs on acts of assertiveness within disputed waters, especially those that are becoming increasingly accessible to exploit, such as in the Arctic.
The Beaufort Sea
The Beaufort Sea is a similar case of an unsolved Arctic maritime dispute, this time between the United States and Canada. The Sea, again touted for hosting raw materials, has not seen any aggressive action by either side. However, reports suggesting the potential of ice free conditions in the Beaufort Sea by 2030 and the subsequent growth in trade capacity that this brings (with demising sea ice already leading to the doubling of vessel traffic in the Arctic since 2004) serving to potentially alter the willingness of each side to leave the dispute as it is. While open conflict is incredibly unlikely, the unclear nature of ownership is only an issue which will grow in significance as the Arctic landscape changes.
What we can learn about maritime disputes
Whilst the Arctic is not unique in having maritime disputes, the rapidly changing nature of the scope and size of Northern nautical activities is rare. Melting sea ice does not only bring with it opportunities in trade, it also creates a greater need for governance and coordination over transnational affairs from a practical point of view. The unclear maritime ownership status of key Arctic seas will become increasingly problematic as international regulations attempt to become established in the area, with the lack of clarity provided by UNCLOS rulings becoming increasingly troubling.
As can be seen from the South China Sea, maritime areas which are left undefined are left vulnerable to conflict and militarisation, especially as foreign interest in those regions grows. The Arctic’s maritime borders are at best, hazily defined through UNCLOS rulings, and the region should move to securing these weaknesses in order to ensure continued peace and cooperation within the region. Whilst maritime disputes have not as of yet turned into open conflict, the assertive actions taken by nations such as Russia connote a potential for this to occur, and thus this weakness within the Arctic must be improved. The undefined nature of Arctic maritime spaces also increases the ease through which non-Arctic actors can grow and assert their influence increasingly prominently, leaving the region vulnerable to greater conflict and tension, and thus mapping out the growing Arctic sea is a matter that Arctic players should take seriously.