The Geopolitical Consequences of Climate Change in the Arctic Region
Through images of melted icebergs and stranded polar bears, the Arctic region has become a striking symbol of the devastating impact of climate change. Located North of the Polar Circle, this region is bordered by eight states: Russia, the US, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Iceland. As climate change reshapes the Arctic’s landscape, the region has become a theatre for intensifying geopolitical competition from these bordering states. The potential of profiting from untapped nature resources and strategic security considerations have ignited renewed power struggles as nations seek to maximize their territorial holds.
As its ice continues to thaw, the Arctic region’s economic importance is coming into focus, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. The landmass is rich in mineral and energy resources, holding vast reserves of oil, natural gas, uranium, lead and gold. Due to rising temperatures, the thawing of ice is making these resources increasingly accessible, turning the Arctic into a strategic area for resource extraction. Consequently, nations and multinational corporations are attracted to the promise of economic gains which could significantly impact global energy markets.
Moreover, the Arctic comprises vast fishing zones, which are becoming increasingly valuable as global fish stock decline elsewhere. Driven by increasing global demand for seafood, overfishing has dramatically reduced fish populations like cod, tuna and mackerel. The Arctic’s largely untapped fishing zones therefore present lucrative opportunities to sustain the world’s seafood supply. Major economies like China and the EU have strong interests in securing access to these new fisheries, to ensure food security and meet domestic demand.
Finally, the region could potentially become a new maritime frontier, as receding ice opens previously inaccessible shipping routes. Due to climate change, new passages such as the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the Northwest Passage (NWP) could transform the dynamics of global trade. Access to such routes could drastically reduce shipping transport times while reducing states’ dependence on traditional chokepoints like the Suez and Panama Canals. Control over such passages is vital as they could determine which nations will exert control over global trade flows in the future.
Consequently, the Arctic’s economic opportunities have led to competing territorial claims amongst its bordering states. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), states can claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles from their coastlines, with the possibility of extending this to 350 nautical miles if the seabed’s characteristics support such a claim. However, these regulations have resulted in overlapping claims and heightened the risk of inter-state conflict.
An example of overlapping territorial claims in the region is the ongoing dispute between Norway and Russia. Both states are claiming the same resource-rich areas in the Barents Sea as part of the extension of their EEZs. This dispute has led to diplomatic friction between Oslo and Moscow, underscoring the limitations of current international frameworks like UNCLOS in managing disputes in this emerging region.
Russia, which holds the largest claim to the Arctic, has taken a particularity aggressive approach to defending its territorial interests in the region. Following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s increasing military presence in the Arctic further highlights Moscow’s ambitions. These shifting security dynamics have led Finland and Sweden to seek integration in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Both states, known for their longstanding neutrality, abandoned their position to seek the support of the world’s strongest military alliance.
As a result, the Arctic has become central to NATO’s strategic calculations. This was illustrated by US President Biden’s visit to Helsinki for the United States-Nordic Leaders’ Summit following the July 11-13, 2023, NATO summit. As illustrated by Russia’s intensifying military posture and NATO’s strategic shift, the Arctic is becoming a crucial stage for inter-state rivalry. The Arctic is rapidly gaining importance in states’ strategic calculations, transforming the once remote region into an arena of geopolitical competition.
Finally, the rush for the Arctic’s resources presents significant environmental and ethical challenges. There are serious ecological risks associated with increases in human activity in this region. Resource extraction and expanded shipping routes could cause environmental degradation in the Arctic’s ecosystem, accelerating ice melts and contributing to a loss of biodiversity. Historical disasters, like the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, serve as catastrophic reminders of the risks of drilling operations in fragile environments. The Exxon Valdez oil spill released over 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaskan water, devastating marine life for decades to come. In the days following the disaster, it was incredibly difficult to conduct effective clean-up operations due to the remote location of the spill and harsh weather conditions. This reveals the immense danger potential similar incidents could have on the Arctic, as the region’s extreme weather and limited infrastructure would make a rapid response nearly impossible. Unregulated activity in this vulnerable area could lead to devastating ecological consequences and greatly affect biodiversity.
As such, international cooperation is key to successfully balancing the Arctic’s economic potential with the need for environmental conservation. In order to preserve the Arctic’s ecosystem, protective “red lines” and strict environmental standards must be established and respected. Mitigating the impact of climate change while simultaneously keeping up with resource demands is an essential challenge facing policymakers, populations and governments alike.
In conclusion, the Arctic is becoming a dual symbol of environmental vulnerability to climate change and economic potential. Due to its untapped resources and strategic position, the region has become central to global affairs as states vie to exert territorial dominance. However, this pursuit for influence over the Arctic presents significant environmental and ethical challenges that threaten the region’s fragile ecosystem. In order to preserve and protect the Arctic’s unique environment, international efforts must establish clear governance guidelines and environmental frameworks. Only a coordinated and ethically grounded approach can balance the region’s economic promise with the imperative of environmental conservation.
Image courtesy of Steen Ulrik Johannessen via Getty Images, ©2014. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
