Autor: Daniel Greiner
As a geography Student at Kiel University, I am especially in interested in how environmental change influences political and economic spaces. In geography, questions about territorial conflicts, resource use and human-environmental relations are highly relevant. My minor in sociology has also shaped how I think about power structures and environmental inequalities. For this reason, the lecture “Governance des Ozeans – Wem gehört der Nord- und Südpol?” by Moritz von Rochow was interesting to me because it approached the Arctic and Antarctic from the perspective of international law, which is outside my main field of study. At the same time, many topics discussed in the lecture are strongly connected to geographical questions about territory, environmental change and political control over space.
What I found interesting was how the lecture showed that climate change is transforming the Arctic into an increasingly important geopolitical region. Due to melting sea ice, shipping routes such as the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage are becoming more accessible. This could significantly change trade routes between Europe, Asia, and North America. Before the lecture, I mainly thought about climate change in terms of environmental consequences. However, the presentation made me realise that environmental change can also reshape political and economic relations between states.
The lecture also discussed conflicts over the legal status of Arctic shipping routes. Canada considers parts of the Northwest Passage to be internal waters, while the United States argues that these routes should be treated as international straits. For me, this highlighted how closely geography is connected to territorial control and political power. Access to shipping routes and marine territory creates strategic and economic advantages, which explains why these regions are politically contested.
Another aspect that stood out to me was the discussion about territorial claims over the Arctic seabed. States such as Russia, Canada, and Denmark attempt to expand their territorial claims by arguing that underwater geological structures belong to their continental shelf. I found this especially interesting because it showed how physical geography can directly influence political conflicts and economic interests. Geological formations beneath the ocean floor become politically important because they are linked to the access of oil, gas, and other natural resources.
The question about Greenland showed how it has become increasingly important because of its strategic location and natural resources. This demonstrates how regions that were once considered remote are now becoming more significant in global politics and economics.
Another important topic was Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty System. The lecture explained that Antarctica is officially dedicated to peaceful scientific cooperation and environmental protection. At the same time, the presentation also raised concerns about future political and economic pressure on these agreements.
From a sociological perspective, the lecture also made me think about how climate change can increase geopolitical competition. Environmental change does not only create ecological problems but can also intensify conflicts over territory and resources.
Overall, the lecture has changed the way I think about polar regions. So far, I mainly associated the Artic and Antarctic region with climate research and environmental issues. The presentation showed me that these regions are also shaped by political interest, territorial conflicts and competition over resources. The lecture connects several fields of research and also raises strong geographic questions in terms of the usage of space, power and the results of climate change.