Based on the readings from this week, and also previous course content, I believe that the Arctic does not need a binding treaty like the Antarctic Treaty System for the entire Arctic region. This is due to several reasons that all stem from the differences between the Arctic and Antarctic territories. The two most important differences between these regions are people and sovereignty. While states can make claims in the Antarctic, they do not have the right to full sovereignty, which makes it easier to negotiate a treaty that does not encroach on any state’s rights. In the Arctic, sovereignty is a huge concern for many states and many members of the Arctic council keep their northern territory under tight national control which limits the effectiveness of an overarching treaty. The concept of sovereignty was discussed in the Polar Law Textbook most effectively https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/15075/files/2940379?module_item_id=716617.
The second reason an Arctic treaty would be ineffective is the nature of the Arctic as a populated landscape. Unlike the Antarctic, which is unpopulated (if you don’t count the penguins) the Arctic is a complex landscape of people and place. Some indigenous groups in the Arctic are still in the process of establishing rights and land claims. http://www.arctis-search.com/Indigenous+Peoples+Rights+in+the+Arctic discusses some of these. Adding an international treaty to the discussion could even potentially harm the progress of land claims and reparations in the Arctic.
With these considerations I believe that the Arctic does not need a binding treaty for the whole region. However, given recent developments of climate change and access to maritime territory in the Arctic, there certainly needs to be a maritime treaty in the Arctic. However, the UN’s Law of the Sea is an existing maritime treaty that also applies to the Arctic and has provisions for many of the concerns highlighted by governments about their Arctic coastal territory. https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/15075/files/2940512?module_item_id=716619 overviews the treaty and the Arctic Council’s role in it. However, all Arctic states need to accept and ratify it for the Law of the Sea to be effective, which has not yet occurred.
Evdokia,
I think you make an excellent point about the difference in sovereignty in the Arctic vs. the Antarctic. In order for a treaty to be effective, it must have equitable impact on the varying parties. Additionally, the fact that the Arctic is populated does have important weight in this conversation. However, I do not think these two points negate the possible effectiveness of an Arctic treaty. The one created in the north does not necessarily need to mirror that of the south. If we take the sovereignty and population factors into account, I am sure we could find some form of agreement upon how arctic states should interact with the Arctic.