The Legal Framework Governing Arctic Sovereignty

The primary legal mechanism for resolving Arctic maritime boundary disputes is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982 and now ratified by most Arctic nations except the United States (although the U.S. generally follows its provisions as customary international law). UNCLOS establishes a comprehensive regime for determining maritime boundaries, including the 12 nautical mile territorial sea, the 24 nautical mile contiguous zone, and the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Perhaps most significantly, Article 76 allows coastal states to claim sovereign rights over their continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles if they can prove the shelf constitutes a natural prolongation of their land territory.

This framework has led to a complex web of overlapping claims in the Arctic region, particularly regarding extended continental shelf submissions. The process requires nations to submit scientific evidence to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a specialized body of scientific experts established under UNCLOS. The CLCS reviews the submissions but does not adjudicate between competing claims—instead recommending the outer limits of continental shelves based on geological criteria. This technical approach, while seemingly straightforward, has spawned highly complex and politically charged disputes throughout the Arctic.

The Lomonosov Ridge Controversy: Science Meets Sovereignty

The most contentious dispute in the Arctic involves the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, a 1,800-kilometer mountain range spanning from Siberia across the central Arctic Ocean to Greenland and Canada’s Ellesmere Island. Russia, Denmark, and Canada have all submitted overlapping claims asserting the ridge is a natural extension of their continental shelves. In 2007, Russia dramatically planted a titanium flag on the seabed at the North Pole, symbolically claiming the region as an extension of the Russian continental shelf. This provocative action reflected the high stakes involved—control over potentially vast deposits of oil, natural gas, and other valuable resources.

Russia’s revised 2015 submission to the CLCS claimed approximately 1.2 million square kilometers of Arctic seabed, including the North Pole. Denmark followed with a claim covering 895,000 square kilometers extending from Greenland, while Canada’s pending submission is expected to include significant portions of the ridge as well. The scientific evidence is complex, requiring sophisticated geophysical surveys and geological sampling to determine whether the ridge is genuinely connected to each country’s continental shelf or represents a separate oceanic feature. The CLCS faces the difficult task of evaluating these competing scientific arguments while remaining neutral on the sovereignty implications, creating a slow-moving process with significant geopolitical ramifications.

The Northwest Passage: International Strait or Internal Waters?

Another significant legal dispute concerns the Northwest Passage, a sea route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through Canada’s Arctic Archipelago. As sea ice diminishes, this once-impassable route has become increasingly navigable, raising important questions about its legal status. Canada maintains that the passage constitutes internal waters, giving it complete sovereignty including the right to regulate transit and enforce Canadian laws. The United States and several European nations counter that the Northwest Passage qualifies as an international strait subject to the right of transit passage, which would permit unhindered navigation for foreign vessels.

This dispute centers on differing interpretations of UNCLOS provisions regarding international straits. Canada argues that its sovereignty over the archipelago’s islands automatically extends to the waters between them under the doctrine of historic title. It points to centuries of Inuit use and occupation as establishing historic Canadian control over these waters. The United States argues that the passage meets the functional criteria of an international strait by connecting two parts of the high seas and being used for international navigation. The disagreement remains unresolved despite a 1988 Arctic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries, which established that U.S. icebreakers would seek Canadian consent before transit—while explicitly stating this arrangement would not affect either country’s legal position.

The Svalbard Treaty’s Modern Challenges

The 1920 Svalbard Treaty presents another distinctive legal challenge in the Arctic. This nearly century-old agreement recognized Norway’s sovereignty over the Svalbard archipelago while guaranteeing equal access to economic activities for citizens of all signatory nations. The treaty explicitly covers the islands and their territorial waters, but it predates modern concepts like the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. This has led to disputes about whether the treaty’s equal access provisions apply to the continental shelf and maritime zones beyond the territorial sea.

Norway maintains that UNCLOS provisions grant it exclusive rights over resources in the extended maritime zones around Svalbard, while Russia and other signatories argue the treaty’s equal treatment provisions should apply throughout these areas. This dispute has significant implications for valuable fishing grounds and potential petroleum reserves. In 2019, Norway’s Supreme Court upheld Norway’s right to set fishing quotas in the waters around Svalbard, but the broader legal question remains contentious on the international stage. This case illustrates how Arctic legal disputes often involve reconciling older treaties with evolving international maritime law in a region transformed by climate change.

Emerging Governance Models for the Changing Arctic

As traditional maritime boundary frameworks strain under the Arctic’s unique challenges, new governance approaches have emerged. The Arctic Council, established in 1996, serves as a high-level intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation on environmental protection and sustainable development. While explicitly excluding military and security issues from its mandate, the Council has facilitated important agreements on search and rescue coordination, oil spill response, and scientific cooperation. The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement, signed in 2018 by Arctic coastal states plus China, Japan, South Korea, Iceland and the European Union, represents another innovative governance model, placing a moratorium on commercial fishing in newly accessible high seas areas until scientific understanding improves.

These collaborative governance mechanisms operate alongside, rather than replacing, the traditional boundary-setting frameworks. They address practical concerns while sovereignty disputes remain unresolved. The region’s future may depend on balancing legitimate national interests with cooperative management of shared resources and environmental challenges. International legal scholars increasingly advocate for expanded use of joint development zones and other provisional arrangements that allow resource utilization while postponing final boundary determinations. Whether states will embrace such pragmatic approaches or continue prioritizing maximal territorial claims remains one of the defining legal questions for the Arctic’s future.