The Arctic Dilemma

For years, the Arctic was seen as a desolate, icy wilderness, remote and untouched by the ambitions of global superpowers. But as climate change melts the ice, this frozen frontier is fast becoming a hotspot for geopolitical competition. Beneath its frigid waters lie vast reserves of oil, gas, and precious minerals worth over 17.2 Trillion, while new shipping routes promise to redraw the map of global trade. The Arctic isn’t just a region anymore, its a scapegoat for power grab.

The main stakeholders in this Arctic game are the United States, Russia, China, and a handful of Nordic countries. Each has a interest in the region to boost economic stability, and their actions are starting to undermine the UN international law. Russia, for example, has been the most aggressive, planting flags (literally and figuratively) on the seafloor, building icebreakers, and expanding its military presence in the Arctic. This hegemonic country sees the Arctic as its own  and wants to secure its share of resources and control over key routes like the Northern Sea Route. Currently, Russia is planning to create a large port in the north of Siberia, shaping itself as a powerhouse in the industry. They are able to ship from e.g. Mumbai to St Petersburg in under 10 days through their new trade route, instead of 30-45 days. This impact may also allow Russia to generate not just revenue, but power through their larger volume purchasing power.

Meanwhile, the United States is catching up, especially as the two are rivals, historically from the cold war, but also now (indirectly). Its Arctic presence is relatively small, with only a couple of aging icebreakers compared to Russia’s fleet of dozens. But America is starting to wake up to the strategic importance of the region, especially with China positioning itself as a self-declared “near-Arctic state.” Beijing has no territorial claims but sees the Arctic as an opportunity to extend its One Belt, One Road Initiative, tapping into resources and influencing trade globally.

The smaller Arctic nations—like Norway, Denmark (via Greenland), and Canada—are also critical players. They’re not just bystanders; they have territorial stakes and are keen to ensure their voices are heard. But they also find themselves in a tricky position, balancing alliances with larger powers while protecting their own interests.

At the heart of the Arctic issue is a question that no one seems able to answer: Who really owns the Arctic? International law, like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), offers some guidelines, but overlapping claims and disagreements make it clear that the Arctic is far from settled territory. However, unlike the Antarctic Treaty, this area is less regulated.

This new frontier is a microcosm of 21st-century geopolitics: climate change, resource scarcity, and superpower rivalry all rolled into one. What happens in the Arctic will create unintended consequence worldwide: it’ll ripple across the globe, shaping economies, trade, and security for decades to come. For now, the Arctic is up for grabs, and the competition is just beginning.

As a result, there is need for global governance across all countries for it to be addressed in the upcoming COP 29 in Azerbaijan, despite being a country that isn't very sustainability oriented, just like the previous COP28 in Dubai. Furthermore, we will need UN, Interglobal Governance to stop North Pole's territorial integrity to be damaged, and for the UN to act as a sovereignty for the Arctic region.