Autorin: Jolina Latet

Ice Caps are melting, global temperatures are increasing, and sea levels are rising at an alarming rate. Constantly we´re being reminded of how climate change is gradually altering the way our world will operate and shape our futures. Whether that´s in the context of geopolitical relations between high powers or the preservation of entire ecosystems of which humankind is dependent on. The main issues revolve around who controls the north and south poles, as these areas influence international relations and environmental disputes due to Arctic routes such as the northwest passage or northern searoute and potential resources in Antarctica.

The key takeaways I gathered from the lecture include the fact that multiple instances of articles in lawful agreements are too vague to make international distinguishments, such as in the case of geographical straight lines.

According to the UNCLOS, straight baselines are allowed where the coastline is “deeply indented and cut into” or where there is a “fringe of islands in the immediate vicinity”(article 7 of the UNCLOS).

However it is never further clarified what technically counts as a deeply indented coastline, nor what “immediate vicinity” actually infers.

While it is true that this imprecise wording accounts for geographical flexibility, since a rigid definition wouldn´t fit all coastlines, it is also what makes international cooperation so difficult, causing multiple issues, for example: some states may expand their maritime zones generously when it´s not precedented or it may even create legal disputes between countries, heightening tensions overseas even further.

Additionally I found it interesting to find out how many different perspectives there are between countries who aim to claim parts of the arctic circle as maritime territory.

The Russian Federation views it as a national transport passage under its own control, allowing oil and gas to be exported through the arctic and serve as a means for economic leverage, when other countries want to use it to transport goods (states needing permission 90 days in advance to pass through) and otherwise functioning as a major military asset.

The U.S. on the other hand argues these waters should be treated as an international shipping route to limit excessive national control, in this case, Russia.

Meanwhile, the specifics that determine arctic territory ownership are still being explored by geologists examining submarine ridges and elevations, which could help diffuse conflict.

If continental rock matches the continental crust, it counts as a natural continuation of the state, therefore expanding the state´s maritime territory and right to extract resources from said area. Say the continental rock isn´t organically connected to the state´s land and originated from oceanic crust or stems from volcanic origin, it´s officially a submarine ridge and does not count towards a state´s territory.

Multiple aspects of the topic at hand connect to my discipline in biology, such as the fact that ocean governance, specifically within the arctic circle, is heavily intertwined with future consequences of climate change, specifically how ice caps are thawing due to rising temperatures, creating a future rise in marine vessel traffic. This in turn directly correlates towards the effects that that much traffic will have on the fauna, entire food webs and habitats through noise, physical presence and pollution. When taking a closer look at future environmental concerns of the Northwest passage for example, an increase in shipping also correlates to a rising risk of oil spills and other various forms of pollution. Canada would need to ensure these waters don´t count towards an international strait and instead follow domestic law, so that stricter environmental standards on oil spill management would be followed. In addition, Innuit food security would also be protected more, which is detrimental to the indigenous communities who heavily rely on these marine resources.

In the case of the northern sea route, the expansion risks intensifying environmental destruction, meaning stricter environmental measures will need to be instated through clear international governance without any room for interpretation.

Overall, the topic is interdisciplinary and envelopes various aspects out of international relations, law, geopolitics, economics, environmental biology, geology and geography.

Each discipline contributes a different perspective stretching from environmental impacts to opposing geopolitical interests to legal limitations and regulations, which make unified approaches essential for sustainable solutions.