As “[t]he Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on Earth,” previously inaccessible natural resources—including oil, natural gas, and rare earth minerals—are becoming more viable for extraction.[1] This shift has prompted countries to look toward the Arctic for economic opportunities and energy security.[2] There is a direct correlation between climate change and resource availability: as ice recedes, it exposes reserves that were previously impractical to extract due to extreme conditions and other limitations.[3] However, increased resource extraction risks disruption to the balance of Arctic ecosystems because of “oil spills, discharge from wastewater, ship strikes and underwater noise pollution”—while also threatening indigenous communities’ livelihood.[4] Additionally, the impacts of climate change underscore the need for strong international legal frameworks that address the environmental, social, and political issues posed by increased resource extraction. As countries will compete for opportunities to newly accessible resources, the effectiveness of existing treaties is bound to be tested. This paper will analyze the current legal frameworks governing Arctic resource extraction, assess their limitations, and propose reforms to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) to enhance environmental protections and enforcement mechanisms in the region.
The Arctic’s legal framework is primarily governed by the UNCLOS, which grants coastal states sovereign rights over resources on their continental shelf up to 200 nautical miles from their coastlines.[5] Within the 200 miles, countries in the Arctic Circle (United States, Canada, Russia, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark) can claim Exclusive Economic Zones (“EEZs”).[6] Through EEZs, these countries can exploit natural resources, while having jurisdiction over the protection and preservation of the marine environment.[7] Even though disputes over EEZs have largely been resolved (through bilateral negotiations), they remain relevant due to transit passage rights and freedom of navigation—i.e., the right of ships to pass through sea routes without obstruction by coastal states.[8] Beyond EEZs, continental shelves remain contentious as Arctic states have yet to fully define the respective boundaries.[9] The main issue preventing boundaries is that “a legally binding ruling on the size and breadth of each of the five Arctic coastal states’ continental shelves . . . has yet to occur.”[10] UNCLOS provides that a state’s continental shelf as including the seabed and subsoil of the “natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin.”[11] The distinction of sovereign rights under UNCLOS is crucial as it balances resource exploitation with international law, preventing territorial claims while allowing economic benefits in the Arctic.
Arctic resource extraction has long been an issue, and as sea ice melts and projects expand, so too do the “socio-environmental consequences suffered by local communities.”[12] Thus, UNCLOS must be revised to establish clear regulations and enforceable mechanisms for Arctic resource extraction and environmental protection. Currently, UNCLOS provides environmental protections under Articles 145 and 146—which focus on safeguarding the marine environment and human life from harmful extractive activities.[13] Nevertheless, the enforcement mechanisms under Articles 213 to 222 rely on “States . . . [to] enforce their laws and regulations,” for implementation, yet this leads to inconsistencies in enforcement across jurisdictions.[14] A decentralized approach weakens compliance, as a state may lack the capacity or will to enforce environmental standards rigorously.[15] Therefore, a more robust system is needed—one that includes binding compliance measures and an independent body to oversee and ensure enforcement in the Arctic region. The World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement system illustrates how binding rulings and enforcement ensure compliance among nations—a guidepost the Arctic can employ.[16]
Furthermore, while countries seek economic benefits from Arctic resource extraction, these projects come at a cost to indigenous communities.[17] Indigenous communities, whose livelihoods depend on Arctic ecosystems, face significant threats from environmental degradation, including loss of biodiversity and cultural displacement.[18] Environmental organizations emphasize the urgency of stronger legal frameworks to prevent irreversible ecological harm.[19] Consider the “severity of climate impacts, [as it] will only grow if no (adequate) energy transition is performed.”[20] Effective reforms must balance these diverse perspectives, ensuring that environmental protections are prioritized and indigenous voices are central to decision-making, while fostering international cooperation for comprehensive enforcement. For example, Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (“FPIC”) guarantees consultation with indigenous communities before projects can proceed—the extractive industry can look to standards outlined by the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (“IRMA”).[21] In addition to reforming UNCLOS, other compliance measures can be taken by enhancing the International Maritime Organization’s International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (“Polar Code”).
In conclusion, reforms to UNCLOS are essential to strengthen environmental protections and ensure legal compliance in the Arctic. Additional research into the Polar Code is needed to assess the potential for regulating industrial activity through expanding environmental safeguards bolstering long-term protection for the region.
[1] See Nat’l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., The Changing Arctic: A Greener, Warmer, and Increasingly Accessible Region, (Dec. 15, 2017), https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/changing-arctic-greener-warmer-and-increasingly-accessible-region.
[2] See Nicholas Cornell & Sarah E. Light, Wrongful Benefit & Arctic Drilling, UC Davis L. Rev. 50, 1845, 1869 (2017).
[3] See id. at 1869–70.
[4] See WWF, Arctic Connected | The Arctic’s Indigenous Communities Under Threat, https://www.arcticwwf.org/newsroom/features/arctic-connected-the-arctics-indigenous-communities-under-threat/.
[5] U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, arts. 55, 57, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.
[6] Id. art. 56.
[7] See id.
[8] Jack Kirkpatrick, Rising Sea Levels and Rising State Interest: How the Arctic Council Should Respond to the Realities of Climate Change and the Resulting Rise in State Interest in a Navigable Arctic, 38 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 455, 465 (2024).
[9] See id.
[10] Mark P. Nevitt & Robert V. Percival, Polar Opposites: Assessing the State of Environmental Law in the World’s Polar Regions, 59 B.C. L. Rev. 1655, 1670 (2018).
[11] See supra note 5, art. 76.
[12] Ksenija Hanaček et al., On Thin Ice – The Arctic Commodity Extraction Frontier and Environmental Conflicts, 191 Ecological Econ. 107247 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107247.
[13] See supra note 5, arts. 145–46.
[14] See id. arts. 213–22.
[15] See U.N. Env’t Programme, Dramatic Growth in Laws to Protect the Environment, but Widespread Failure to Enforce (Jan. 24, 2019), https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/dramatic-growth-laws-protect-environment-widespread-failure-enforce.
[16] World Trade Org., Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes (2024), https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm.
[17] Hanaček, supra note 12.
[18] See id.
[19] See Press Release, U.N. Gen. Assembly, With Climate Crisis Deepening Worldwide, Third Committee Urges States to Ramp up Environmental Legislation, Provide Funding to Hard-Hit Developing Nations, U.N. Press Release GA/SHC/4387 (Oct. 16, 2023).
[20] See Natascha van Bommel & Johanna I. Höffken, The Urgency of Climate Action and the Aim for Justice in Energy Transitions – Dynamics and Complexity, 48 Envtl. Innovation & Societal Transitions 100763 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100763.
[21] See IRMA, The Standard for Responsible Mining, 49–54 (Jun. 2018), https://responsiblemining.net/resources/#full-documentation-and-guidance.
