Previously published in Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence, February 2012.

The Arctic is a vast frontier, rich in oil and gas resources. In 2009, the United States Geological Survey estimated that about 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil may be found north of the Arctic Circle.1 The Arctic is also home to unique fish and wildlife populations. It is traversed by national maritime boundary lines and also by commercial shipping lanes. As polar ice recedes, resource development becomes more feasible; at the same time, vulnerable ecosystems are changing.

Many are concerned about traditional military conflict between Arctic nations. Last month, on Christmas Day, the Washington Post published an op-ed referring to the "global fight for Santa's back yard."2 The piece highlights the new U.S. Unified Command Plan, which gives Northern Command responsibility for more of the Arctic. It fails to mention, however, that the command plan emphasizes "human and environmental safety and security" in the Arctic, not preparation for armed conflict.3

Indeed, the true conflict in the Arctic is not one between military forces. Rather, the important contest is between competing resource uses and environmental protection. Balancing industrial uses – including energy development, shipping, and fisheries – with environmental interests is the key to resolving the real Arctic conflict. This challenge will play out on the commercial stage, not the political-military stage. Typically, though not always, commercial and environmental interests drive states toward cooperation, not conflict. Arctic states, as well as non-state actors, all have an interest in working together to develop energy resources while protecting the ecosystems of the Arctic in a time when the Arctic climate is changing.

The following articles address several areas essential to understanding current and future Arctic issues:

  • The legal regime, maritime boundary delimitation, and dispute resolution. Cooperation in the Arctic is displayed in states' reliance on international law, multilateral cooperation, and bilateral treaties in addressing boundary delimitation and other matters. In this article, Timothy J. Tyler, James L. Loftis, and Emilie Hawker argue that bilateral treaties between Arctic nations will best fill the gaps in the legal framework and allow resource exploration to advance. And, reinforcing the theme of cooperation, James Loftis and Daniel Bergman discuss the potential emergence and establishment of a general duty of good faith in international law in relation to border issues and the exploitation of shared resources. Read the article here.
  • The environmental issues associated with resource management and development in the Arctic. Arctic actors have recognized the need for cooperation in order to protect the changing ecosystem. In their article, authors Carol E. Dinkins, Margaret E. Peloso, and Hana V. Vizcarra explain that differences in environmental governance, including regulations and the likelihood of citizen suits, are important factors making a state more or less attractive as a location for resource development. Read the article here.

Developments in the Arctic have already captivated governments, energy companies, and environmentalists. The region's importance will only grow as the ice shrinks.

Footnotes

1 Donald L. Gautier, et al., Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Arctic, Science (May 29, 2009) at 1175-79; see also U.S. Geological Survey, An Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska (Circular 1370) (2011) at 25-28.
2 Heather A. Conley, The Colder War, Wash. Post (Dec. 25, 2011) at B1 & B4.
3 Jim Garamone, Unified Command Plan Reflects Arctic's Importance, American Forces Press Service (Apr. 7, 2011).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.