Is a treaty like the Antarctic Treaty possible for the Arctic?

The Arctic has become a particularly strategic region and is poised to become an area significant geopolitical tension. Antarctica, too, has in the past been the subject of ambitions by various powers, but an international treaty agreed upon in 1961 and subsequently extended put sovereignty claims on hold, giving rise—until now—to a space for partnership. Is it also possible to reach a comprehensive treaty on the North Pole region that shares some of the approaches applied to the South Pole while also addressing some of its unique characteristics?

The Arctic and the Antarctic are two polar opposites, not only because they represent the two extremes of the globe. Despite their apparent similarities, we know that they are fundamentally different, even though they share similar climatic conditions.

The Arctic is a frozen ocean and, as such, is governed by the agreement the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which regulates areas of sovereignty, delimits the respective exclusive economic zones, and guarantees international trade routes. In addition to this international treaty, the provisions of each bordering country regarding its maritime space also come into play: Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and the United States, as well as the European Union’s rights, given that some of its member states are included in this list. Finally, there is a reference letter body, the committee , an international forum composed of countries with a presence in the Arctic Circle, whose decisions are not legally binding.

On the other side of the planet lies Antarctica, a name that refers both to the ocean surrounding the South Pole and to the continent at that other end of the Earth. The main difference, then, is that we are dealing with landmass covered in ice: Antarctica, governed by a 1961 agreement . The Antarctic Treaty establishes a moratorium (initially for thirty years and later, with the 1991 protocol , extended indefinitely) on national territorial claims and prioritizes the peaceful use of the region, with a focus on research.

Relevant Variables

The contrast between the status the two poles thus has to do with their natural characteristics, the sovereignty of the countries with adjacent territories, and the international regime affecting the region. There is also one factor that particularly influences decisions regarding the signature multilateral treaties: the presence or absence of an indigenous population. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is home to indigenous peoples—not on its uninhabited ice cap, but in the territories of Europe, Siberia, and North America that lie beyond the Arctic Circle. These peoples are represented on the committee as permanent participants.

This point is core topic considering a regime such as that for Antarctica, since states should take into account the wishes of the indigenous peoples of those territories, as required by international agreements on the rights of ethnic minorities to which most of them are signatories, making it difficult essay a treaty essay is satisfactory to all.

Finally, it is also worth considering the general public’s perception, since if the two regions are perceived as similar, this can influence the decision-making process—after all, the training new legal systems is not always a completely rational process.

Greater flexibility than a treaty

The idea of reaching a consensus on an international treaty for the Arctic Ocean is not new. Since the 1970s, various alternatives have been proposed, which have since evolved depending on the international context and the interests of each state.

In May 2008, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States issued the Ilulissat Declaration, in which they stated that it was not necessary to establish any international legal regime for this region. This lack of interest on the part of the states most directly affected is compounded by the struggle among major powers over the new world order: China’s interest in a “Polar Silk Road,” pressure from the Trump administration to acquire Greenland, and Moscow’s concern with securing access to natural resources in the face of restrictions imposed by the West due to the invasion of Ukraine...

For a treaty aimed at governing the Arctic to be viable, ambitions regarding sovereignty, control of shipping routes, and resource exploitation would have to be set aside—as was done in 1961 with the Antarctic Treaty—at least for a certain period of time. However, today’s international dynamics point more toward strategic rivalry than toward cooperation.

In any case, the most feasible option would likely be an approach that offers greater flexibility than a treaty: building on the Structures established through the committee and its various work groups work drawing on the operational provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an effort could be made to expand partnership commitments.