GOVERNANCE – arctictradenations

Geopolitics and Governance in the Arctic

The Arctic is rapidly emerging as one of the most strategically significant regions of the 21st century. As the polar ice caps recede and previously inaccessible areas open to human activity, Arctic nations are increasingly asserting territorial claims and maritime rights, often overlapping and contested. Sovereignty disputes over continental shelves, exclusive economic zones, and emerging sea routes are prompting renewed diplomatic and legal engagement. Key stakeholders—including the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (via Greenland)—are advancing their national interests while working within the bounds of international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Simultaneously, regional governance is evolving through cooperative institutions such as the Arctic Council, which brings together Arctic states, Indigenous Permanent Participants, and observer nations to address shared challenges. These include environmental protection, sustainable development, search and rescue coordination, and scientific collaboration. The Arctic Council’s consensus-based model is an example of how multilateral governance can function effectively—even amid geopolitical tensions—by prioritizing peace, science, and cooperation over confrontation.

However, as global powers outside the Arctic—such as China and the European Union—take greater interest in the region’s economic and strategic potential, the geopolitical landscape is becoming more complex. Increased military activity, infrastructure development, and resource competition are all reshaping the Arctic’s strategic profile. The region is no longer just a site of scientific inquiry or environmental concern; it is now a theater for geopolitical maneuvering, where national ambitions intersect with global interests and environmental constraints.

At the heart of this evolving landscape is a pressing need for adaptive, inclusive, and forward-looking governance. Arctic governance must balance economic opportunity with ecological preservation, national security with Indigenous rights, and short-term gains with long-term sustainability. This requires thoughtful regulatory frameworks, robust international cooperation, and respect for the voices and rights of Arctic communities, particularly Indigenous peoples who have inhabited the region for millennia.

Understanding the intricate interplay between geopolitics and governance in the Arctic is essential for policymakers, investors, researchers, and community leaders alike. It enables more informed decisions, promotes peaceful collaboration, and contributes to a stable, well-regulated future for one of the world’s most critical and vulnerable regions.

Territorial Claims and Sovereignty

The Arctic has become a focal point for territorial claims and sovereignty disputes. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Arctic nations have the right to claim extended continental shelves beyond their exclusive economic zones (EEZs).

This legal framework allows countries to assert rights over seabed resources up to 350 nautical miles from their coastlines or even beyond, provided they can substantiate their claims scientifically.

As a result, several Arctic nations have laid overlapping claims in the Arctic Ocean, particularly over areas that may contain valuable oil, gas, and mineral resources. These territorial disputes are subject to international adjudication and are significantly shaping the geopolitical landscape in the region.

Let’s delve deeper into some of the territorial claims being made by the primary Arctic players: Russia, Canada, Denmark, and the United States.

Russia

Russia is one of the most active players in the Arctic, with substantial claims over the region. The country has laid out extensive territorial claims, including areas that extend all the way to the North Pole. This is based on Russia’s assertion that the Lomonosov Ridge, a subsea mountain range stretching under the Arctic Ocean, is an extension of its continental shelf. These claims are supported by Russia’s scientific research, including underwater expeditions that have taken place in recent years.

To bolster its presence and assert its control over the Arctic, Russia has heavily invested in Arctic infrastructure, including the construction of new ports, icebreakers, and airfields, which are crucial for both economic activities (like oil and gas extraction) and military operations. Russia has also increased its military capabilities in the region, re-establishing bases and deploying advanced missile systems, making the Arctic a strategic military priority. Russia’s actions have sparked concern among other Arctic nations, particularly regarding its growing military footprint, and this has further complicated the region’s geopolitical dynamics.

Canada and Denmark

Both Canada and Denmark have made territorial claims extending toward the North Pole, specifically through the areas surrounding the Arctic Archipelago and Greenland. These claims have led to a long-standing dispute between the two countries over the status of Hans Island, a small, uninhabited rock in the Nares Strait, which lies between Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Canada. While this particular dispute has largely been settled diplomatically, the broader territorial claims remain unresolved.

Canada’s claim is centered on the continental shelf off its northern coast, and it argues that the underwater features of the Arctic Ocean, including the Lomonosov Ridge, are part of its continental extension. Denmark, which administers Greenland, has similar territorial claims and has been actively participating in the scientific research needed to support its claims under UNCLOS. The dispute between Canada and Denmark over the precise boundary lines in the Arctic has required ongoing diplomatic negotiations, but both countries have expressed a commitment to resolving the issues peacefully through international legal processes.

As both nations have strategic interests in the region, including potential resource extraction and control over Arctic shipping routes, the resolution of these claims is critical not only for national sovereignty but for ensuring cooperation in the future governance of the Arctic.

United States

Although the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, it remains a key actor in Arctic governance due to its strategic interests in the region. The U.S. has made its own assertions regarding the Arctic, including a claim over the extended continental shelf off Alaska. However, the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, meaning it does not automatically benefit from the legal framework that allows other Arctic nations to claim additional seabed territory beyond their EEZs.

Despite not being a signatory to the convention, the U.S. actively engages in Arctic governance and asserts its interests through bilateral and multilateral agreements with Arctic states, including Canada, Denmark, and Norway. The United States also participates in the Arctic Council, which is an intergovernmental forum focused on promoting cooperation and coordination among Arctic nations. The U.S. has focused on maintaining a military presence in Alaska, due, in part, to concerns over Russia’s military expansion in the Arctic.

The Importance of International Governance

The overlapping territorial claims in the Arctic underscore the need for robust international governance to prevent conflicts and ensure the peaceful resolution of disputes. While UNCLOS provides a framework for resolving disputes and establishing rights to resources, the practical implementation of these claims remains complex. The Arctic Council, which comprises the eight Arctic nations, is a crucial forum for cooperation on environmental, security, and economic issues in the region.

As the Arctic continues to be a focal point of global interest, it is imperative that the countries involved adhere to international laws and engage in constructive dialogue to resolve conflicts and ensure the sustainable development of the region. Effective governance and collaboration will be key to maintaining peace, fostering economic growth, and protecting the Arctic’s fragile environment for future generations.

Councils

The Arctic Council: A Key Governance Body

The Arctic Council is the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction among Arctic states, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders on common Arctic issues—particularly those related to sustainable development and environmental protection.

Key roles of the Arctic Council include:

Addressing shared challenges such as search and rescue, environmental protection, and scientific research.
Facilitating dialogue among Arctic nations and indigenous communities.
Serving as a platform for collaboration rather than conflict, as military and security issues are not part of its mandate.

The Council is made up of eight member states: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. These countries have sovereign territories within the Arctic Circle and share stewardship responsibilities for the region. In addition to member states, the Arctic Council includes six Indigenous Permanent Participant organizations, which represent the voices and rights of Arctic Indigenous peoples. These groups play a unique and essential role in shaping policy, ensuring that traditional knowledge and community needs are integrated into the Council’s work. The Council also grants observer status to non-Arctic nations, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs with interests in the region. This inclusive approach allows for broader cooperation while preserving the central decision-making role of Arctic states and Indigenous representatives.

Unlike traditional international organizations with centralized authority, the Arctic Council operates through a decentralized model. Its Secretariat, established in 2013, is located in Tromsø, Norway, at the Fram Centre, a hub for Arctic research and policy collaboration. The Secretariat plays a vital role in ensuring continuity, supporting working groups, and facilitating communication between member states and permanent participants. Another distinct feature of the Arctic Council is its rotating chairmanship, which shifts every two years among member states. The chair country sets the agenda and hosts major meetings during its term, providing leadership on priority issues ranging from climate change and biodiversity to economic development and emergency preparedness.

The Nordic Council

A Framework for Regional Cooperation

In addition to member states, the Arctic Council includes six Indigenous Permanent Participant organizations, which represent the voices and rights of Arctic Indigenous peoples. These groups play a unique and essential role in shaping policy, ensuring that traditional knowledge and community needs are integrated into the Council’s work.

A distinctive feature of the Arctic Council is its rotating chairmanship, which shifts every two years among member states. The chair country sets the agenda and hosts major meetings during its term, providing leadership on priority issues ranging from climate change and biodiversity to economic development and emergency preparedness.

The Council also grants observer status to non-Arctic nations, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs with interests in the region. This inclusive approach allows for broader cooperation while preserving the central decision-making role of Arctic states and Indigenous representatives.

While the Arctic Council explicitly excludes military and security matters from its mandate, it has proven to be a resilient platform for diplomacy and cooperation, even during periods of global political tension. Its focus on scientific collaboration, environmental stewardship, and Indigenous engagement has helped maintain peace and stability in a region of growing strategic importance.

As climate change accelerates environmental transformation and opens new pathways for trade and development, the Arctic Council’s role in shaping a cooperative and sustainable Arctic future has never been more critical.

Arctic Governance

The Arctic is a region characterized by its vast natural resources, environmental sensitivity, and geopolitical importance, which requires a well-defined and robust regulatory framework to manage its future. As the region becomes increasingly accessible due to climate change and the melting of sea ice, governance will play a pivotal role in determining how its resources, territories, and activities are managed. Key treaties, policies, and agreements are guiding the Arctic’s governance, shaping its economic, environmental, and security dynamics. Below are some of the essential policy and regulatory frameworks that are governing the Arctic’s future.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

UNCLOS is the cornerstone of international maritime law and plays a critical role in governing the Arctic. This treaty, which all Arctic nations (except the United States) are parties to, establishes the legal framework for maritime boundaries, the rights to resources in the seabed, and the management of territorial waters. For the Arctic, UNCLOS is particularly important in determining the extent of each nation’s continental shelf and the rights to exploit resources in these areas, such as oil, gas, and minerals.

Under UNCLOS, nations can extend their claims to the continental shelf beyond their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) if they can prove through scientific data that the seabed is a natural extension of their land territory. This has led to overlapping claims in the Arctic Ocean, especially around the Lomonosov Ridge, where several nations—particularly Russia, Canada, and Denmark—are asserting their territorial rights.

This treaty also provides a mechanism for resolving disputes, offering a structured framework for nations to address conflicting claims peacefully. While UNCLOS provides the legal foundation for Arctic territorial claims, its implementation is complex, and ongoing international negotiations are necessary to address the region’s evolving geopolitics.

Polar Code

The Polar Code, adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), is another essential regulatory framework that is shaping the Arctic’s future. The Polar Code sets safety and environmental standards for ships operating in the harsh and sensitive conditions of the Arctic. As shipping activity in the Arctic increases, particularly with the opening of new trade routes, it is crucial to ensure that vessels are designed and operated in ways that mitigate risks to both human safety and the environment.

The Polar Code addresses several critical areas, including ship design and equipment, ice navigation, safety management, and pollution prevention. For instance, the code mandates that ships operating in the Arctic must be reinforced to withstand ice conditions, and it sets stringent regulations on the types of fuels that ships can use, aiming to reduce environmental damage, such as oil spills and emissions.

Environmental protection is a central feature of the Polar Code, given the Arctic’s fragile ecosystems. As global shipping routes shift and the volume of traffic increases, adherence to the Polar Code is essential for minimizing environmental risks in the region, ensuring that the Arctic remains protected from the harmful impacts of maritime activity.

Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements

In addition to international treaties like UNCLOS and the Polar Code, many Arctic nations engage in bilateral and multilateral agreements to address specific regional concerns. These agreements cover a wide range of issues, including scientific cooperation, search and rescue operations, fisheries management, and environmental protection.

One important example is the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, signed by all eight Arctic Council member states. This agreement focuses on improving cooperation and coordination in the event of emergencies in the Arctic, such as maritime accidents or other distress situations. It outlines responsibilities for providing assistance, enhancing operational capacity, and ensuring that adequate resources are in place for search-and-rescue operations in the region.

The Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation is another significant agreement that promotes the sharing of research data and the collaboration of scientific efforts across Arctic nations. This agreement is vital for advancing understanding of the Arctic’s changing environment, which is central to informed decision-making regarding environmental management, resource extraction, and climate change mitigation.

Other agreements, such as those addressing fisheries management in the region, help ensure that Arctic marine resources are used sustainably. These agreements typically involve strict regulations on fishing quotas, fishing methods, and seasonal restrictions to prevent overfishing and protect vulnerable species.

National Arctic Strategies

Each Arctic nation has developed its own national strategy for engaging with the region, reflecting its specific interests, priorities, and approach to Arctic governance. These strategies are essential for balancing the competing demands of security, economic development, environmental protection, and indigenous rights.

Russia

Russia’s national Arctic strategy is heavily focused on militarization and economic exploitation. As the largest Arctic nation, Russia is committed to asserting its control over Arctic territories, particularly with regard to its extensive claims to the continental shelf. Russia is investing heavily in Arctic infrastructure, including ports, airfields, and military bases, to bolster its presence in the region. It is also aggressively pursuing resource extraction, particularly oil and natural gas, and has been a key player in the development of Arctic shipping routes. The country’s strategy is centered on both economic growth and asserting its geopolitical influence in the Arctic.

Canada

Canada’s Arctic strategy places a strong emphasis on sovereignty and indigenous engagement. As a nation with significant territorial claims in the Arctic, Canada focuses on asserting its sovereignty while also addressing the needs and rights of its Indigenous peoples, who have lived in the Arctic for centuries. Canada’s strategy includes investment in infrastructure and security while prioritizing sustainable development and environmental stewardship. Canada has also been an advocate for strong international cooperation in the Arctic to ensure the peaceful and responsible use of the region’s resources.

United States

Although the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, it has a comprehensive national strategy for Arctic engagement that emphasizes national security, environmental protection, and global cooperation. The U.S. is focused on maintaining its military presence in the Arctic, particularly given the increasing strategic importance of the region due to its natural resources and emerging shipping routes. Additionally, the U.S. prioritizes environmental protection in its Arctic policies, working with international partners to monitor and mitigate the effects of climate change. The U.S. also plays an active role in Arctic governance through bilateral and multilateral agreements, ensuring that its interests are represented in international discussions.

The Arctic is an evolving region, where new opportunities and challenges emerge as climate change opens new access to its resources and shipping routes. Managing the Arctic requires a comprehensive and coordinated approach, and the policies and regulations in place—ranging from international treaties like UNCLOS and the Polar Code to national strategies and multilateral agreements—are essential in ensuring that the Arctic’s resources are used responsibly and sustainably. These frameworks provide a basis for collaboration, conflict resolution, and environmental stewardship, which will be crucial in safeguarding the Arctic for future generations while maximizing its potential for economic development and scientific discovery.

Geopolitical Tensions and Cooperation

The Arctic has historically been viewed as a region of cooperation, with nations working together through frameworks such as the Arctic Council to address shared environmental, security, and economic challenges. However, as the region’s strategic importance grows due to its vast natural resources, emerging shipping routes, and geopolitical significance, tensions are rising. While Arctic nations have long collaborated on issues such as environmental protection and indigenous rights, the increasing competition for resources and strategic positioning has led to concerns about militarization and territorial disputes. In particular, the involvement of non-Arctic states, notably China, has further complicated the geopolitical dynamics in the region.

Russia’s Military Presence

As one of the largest Arctic nations, Russia has consistently focused on asserting its dominance in the Arctic. This includes significant investments in its military presence, reactivating and modernizing Soviet-era bases and establishing new ones along its Arctic coastline. Russia has also expanded its icebreaker fleet, which is crucial for maintaining year-round access to the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and other Arctic regions, even during the harsh winter months.

Russia’s military buildup includes the deployment of advanced missile systems, radar installations, and air-defense systems in the Arctic, raising concerns among other Arctic and non-Arctic nations about the region’s militarization. This military focus not only reflects Russia’s desire to control key shipping routes and resource-rich territories but also serves as a means of asserting its influence over a region that is becoming increasingly important in global geopolitics. Russia’s actions have sparked a response from NATO and other Western nations, who view Russia’s militarization as a potential challenge to the stability and security of the Arctic.

China’s Interest

Despite being a non-Arctic nation, China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and has become increasingly active in Arctic affairs. China’s growing interest in the Arctic is driven by both economic and strategic considerations. The region’s vast natural resources, including oil, gas, and minerals, have attracted Chinese investment, particularly in energy extraction and infrastructure development. China has invested in Arctic shipping infrastructure, including icebreakers, port facilities, and research stations, with the aim of securing access to these resources and positioning itself as a key player in the region’s economic future.

In addition to its investments, China has been actively involved in Arctic governance, participating in the Arctic Council and other international discussions. While China does not have territorial claims in the Arctic, its growing influence and interest in the region have raised concerns among Arctic states, particularly regarding its long-term strategic objectives.

U.S. and NATO Response

In response to Russia’s growing military presence and China’s increasing influence in the Arctic, the United States and its NATO allies have ramped up their own activities in the region. The U.S. views the Arctic as a critical area for national security, particularly given the strategic importance of the Northern Sea Route and the region’s resource potential. The U.S. has increased its military presence in the Arctic, conducting joint exercises with NATO allies and enhancing its Arctic defense capabilities. The U.S. has also reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining freedom of navigation in the region, which could be threatened by territorial disputes and militarization.

NATO has played a significant role in supporting U.S. efforts in the Arctic, with many NATO member countries also expressing concerns about Russia’s actions in the region. The alliance has emphasized the need for continued dialogue and cooperation but has also made it clear that it is prepared to counter any challenges to the security and stability of the Arctic.

The U.S. and NATO have also strengthened ties with Arctic nations like Canada and Norway, both of which share strategic interests in the region. Collaborative efforts include enhanced surveillance, intelligence sharing, and joint military exercises aimed at ensuring the security of Arctic shipping routes and deterring potential military aggression.

Emerging Geopolitical Landscape: Cooperation vs. Competition

The Arctic’s future will be shaped by a delicate balance of cooperation and competition. On one hand, nations in the region have historically worked together to address environmental challenges, scientific research, and indigenous rights through frameworks like the Arctic Council. However, as the region’s economic potential becomes more apparent, competition for resources and strategic advantage is intensifying.

The role of non-Arctic states like China adds complexity to the geopolitical landscape. While these nations do not have territorial claims in the region, their economic investments and growing influence have the potential to alter the balance of power in the Arctic. This has prompted Arctic nations to reconsider their strategies for managing the region, balancing economic growth with the need to maintain security and sovereignty.

The presence of competing military forces, territorial disputes, and increasing economic interests in the Arctic underscores the importance of international cooperation. Despite the rising tensions, the region still holds the potential for peaceful collaboration, as evidenced by ongoing diplomatic efforts and multilateral agreements. The key challenge moving forward will be maintaining a cooperative environment that allows for sustainable development, responsible resource management, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, while mitigating the risks of militarization and geopolitical conflict.

The Arctic is increasingly becoming a region of both cooperation and geopolitical tension. As Russia, China, the U.S., and NATO engage in a complex web of strategic actions, the region’s economic potential, security considerations, and environmental challenges will shape the future of Arctic governance. While the Arctic remains a region of cooperation through frameworks like the Arctic Council, the growing militarization and resource competition highlight the need for careful diplomacy and robust international governance. The ability of Arctic and non-Arctic states to navigate these tensions while fostering collaboration will determine whether the region remains a peaceful zone for cooperation or becomes a flashpoint for geopolitical rivalry.

The Balance Between Governance and Geopolitics

The future of the Arctic hinges on the delicate balance between multilateral governance and national geopolitical ambition. As the region becomes increasingly accessible due to climate change and technological advances, it is also becoming more contested—economically, strategically, and diplomatically. This dynamic tension presents both a challenge and an opportunity: the challenge of managing rising competition among nations, and the opportunity to strengthen cooperative governance structures that promote peace, stability, and shared prosperity.

Central to Arctic governance is the Arctic Council, a high-level intergovernmental forum that includes the eight Arctic states—Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States—alongside Indigenous Permanent Participants and observer states. The Council has played a vital role in facilitating collaboration on scientific research, environmental protection, search and rescue protocols, and sustainable development. Its consensus-based decision-making model has allowed it to function as a rare platform for constructive dialogue, even during periods of heightened global tension.

However, the rise in geopolitical competition—fueled by resource interests, strategic positioning, and shifting global alliances—poses significant risks to this cooperative framework. As Arctic sea routes become more viable and access to untapped reserves of oil, gas, and critical minerals expands, nations are increasingly pursuing unilateral strategies to secure their interests. Military activity is rising, infrastructure investments are intensifying, and rhetoric around sovereignty and influence is becoming more assertive. These developments threaten to outpace or even destabilize the governance mechanisms designed to manage them.

This growing divergence between cooperative governance and strategic competition underscores a critical question: Will the Arctic be shaped by rules or by rivalry? The answer depends on the choices made today by policymakers, stakeholders, and the international community. Upholding governance structures like the Arctic Council, while adapting them to address emerging challenges, is essential. At the same time, meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities, non-Arctic observer states, and environmental institutions must remain central to the Arctic’s future development.

For decision-makers, the priority must be to reinforce dialogue over division and governance over confrontation. This includes investing in confidence-building measures, transparency, and legal clarity—especially in areas where jurisdictional claims may overlap or where strategic interests collide. It also means recognizing that the Arctic is not a geopolitical vacuum but a region with its own histories, communities, and governance traditions that deserve respect and inclusion.

In the years ahead, the Arctic will serve as a critical test case for how the world navigates complex international challenges. Maintaining a balance between governance and geopolitics is not merely a regional concern—it is a global imperative. If the Arctic can be a model for peaceful cooperation in the face of strategic competition, it can offer valuable lessons for other contested spaces across the planet. But if geopolitical ambition overwhelms governance, the consequences will reverberate far beyond the ice.