HFSMUN 2013 Study Guide
INTRODUCTION
The melting of the Arctic ice cap reveals far more than just an
environmental threat. It sets the stage for the competing territorial
ambitions of the Arctic States, and makes even more pressing the
need for a legislative framework within which to resolve these
growing tensions.
The Arctic is geographically defined as the areas located within the
Arctic Circle as well as parts of Canada, Russia, the United States,
Greenland (as a territory of Denmark), Norway, Sweden, Finland
and Iceland.
In a time of increasing scarcity of world oil and natural gas
resources, scientists predict that the Arctic contains about 22
percent of the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in
the world. The United States Geological Survey has stated that the area accounts for about 13
percent of the undiscovered oil (90 billion barrels), 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas
(1,670 trillion cubic feet), and 20 percent (44 billion barrels) of the undiscovered natural gas
liquids in the world.
This, along with the fact that the melting of polar ice due to global warming (note that Arctic sea
ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers on 26th August 2012, the lowest ever level since
observations began 33 years ago) means the creation of lucrative trade routes in the Northwest
Passage (NWP) and the Northern Sea Route (NSR), has meant increasing militarization of the
Arctic. Major circumpolar nations such as Canada, Norway,
Denmark and Russia have each announced a considerable expansion of their respective military
capacities in the High North. Military operations, scientific expeditions, deployment of nuclear
weapons in the region are all steps that have been taken to effectively claim resources which may
soon become available to those who have control over the shelf. Russia, for instance, now
conducts regular air patrols of the Arctic and in May 2009 the Russian Security Council (which
includes the Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and heads of the military and intelligence agencies)
discussed the possibility of war in the Arctic within a decade, over control of the region’s natural
resources. In response, NATO forces began resupplying the Thule Air Base in Greenland.
Meanwhile, the U.S.A. and Canada have also been working in conjunction to strengthen the North
American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD).
Even traditionally peaceful states such as Norway and Canada have been training their navies to
provide defence in case of potential confrontation.
Thus, it becomes clear that the question of the peaceful use of resources in the Arctic calls for the
development of global partnerships like never before – only the creation of an intricate,
multifaceted and universally acceptable solution will ensure peace and stability in one of the
world’s most politically, economically and environmentally fragile regions.
HFSMUN 2013 Study Guide
TOPIC HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Conflicting Territorial Claims
From the very beginning, exploration of the Arctic often combined scientific, geopolitical, and
even commercial purposes with the pursuit of national prestige. Therefore, Arctic exploration was
undertaken not only by the states bordering on the Arctic Ocean: the United States, the Soviet
Union/Russia, Canada, Denmark-Greenland and Norway, but also by actors such as Germany, the
United Kingdom and Poland.
However, at the time, there was no international statute in place that would clearly regulate
boundaries for all states in the Arctic region – all countries of the Arctic rim loosely accepted the
sector principle, a version of the doctrine of contiguity, and facilely based their territorial claims
on this agreement. According to the sector principle, the northern coastlines of the countries
adjacent to the Arctic Circle were to indicate the northern boundaries of their respective sectors
in the Arctic Ocean, while longitudinal parallels extending from their eastern and western borders
bounded these sectors from the other two sides.
In the absence of a definite framework, extended sea sovereignty conflicts and disputes had
arisen between the United States, Canada, the Soviet Union/Russia, Denmark-Greenland, Norway,
and Iceland by the 1920s. These conflicting territorial claims are still being contested, and form
the basis of any question of the distribution and use of Arctic resources.
They are also the key justifications provided for the
increasing militarization of Arctic states.
Northwest Passage
In the tense post-war Cold War context, as the United
States security policy became increasingly dependent
upon the relatively free access to the Canadian Arctic,
disputes arose over the NWP. The United States
rejected the Canadian jurisdiction over it – while it still
recognized Canada’s rights to sovereignty over the
Arctic Trade Routes
islands of the Arctic Archipelago, it declared that the
NWP in its entirety should be regarded as an
international strait where foreign vessels had the
unrestricted right of transit passage. Canada, on the other hand, claimed the Northwest Passage
and the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as internal waters based on a liberal application
of the doctrine of straight baselines.
In 1969, the American tanker Manhattan traveled through the NWP, without Canadian
permission, leading to Canadian indignation. A similar incident took place in 1985, with the US ice
breaker Polar Sea. As a result of these instances, in 1988 the Canadian and American governments
signed ‘Arctic Cooperation’; however, this agreement does not address the actual sovereignty
dispute, it merely regulates the practicalities that surround it. For example, it states that no
vessels that engage in research, including US Coast Guard vessels, can enter
Canadian Arctic waters without the Canadian government’s consent. This means that the actual
dispute about the status of the NWP continues to date.
HFSMUN 2013 Study Guide
Lomonosov Ridge
In the 2000s, the geological structure of the ridge attracted international attention due to a 20
December 2001 official submission by the Russian Federation to the UN Commission on the Limits
of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The document proposed establishing new outer limits for the Russian continental shelf, beyond
the previous 200-mile (320 km) zone, but within the Russian Arctic sector. The territory claimed by
Russia in the submission is a large portion of the Arctic reaching North Pole. One of the arguments
was a statement that the underwater Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Ridge are extensions of
the Eurasian continent. In 2002 the UN Commission neither rejected nor accepted the Russian
proposal, recommending additional research.
Danish scientists hope to prove that the ridge is an extension of Greenland which would
make Denmark another claimant to the area. Canada, another claimant, asserts that the ridge is
an extension of its continental shelf. In April 2007, Canadian and Russian scientists were sent to
map the ridge as a possible precedent for determining sovereignty over the area. In late June
2007, Russian scientists claimed that the ridge is an extension of Russia's territory.
Svalbard Archipelago
The beginning of the first wave of claims was marked by Norway’s acquisition of the Svalbard
Archipelago (north-west of Norway), which was recognized by the Spitsbergen Treaty (between
Norway, The United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great
Britain and Ireland and the British overseas Dominions and Sweden).
However, disagreements persist over the way the treaty has since been interpreted. Norway has
been given sovereignty and responsibility for administering the fishing rights and safeguarding the
environment. But it is also meant to give other signatories to the treaty equal rights to exploit
Svalbard's natural resources four miles onto the continental shelf. The problem is that Norway
does not regard the archipelago as having its own shelf, leaving scope for conflict. A major oil
discovery off Svalbard would undoubtedly trigger a serious dispute.
Bering Strait
The US and Russia have a disagreement over the exact maritime border from the Bering Sea into
the Arctic Ocean. A deal was signed with the then-USSR, but Russia has since refused to ratify it.
Barents Sea
Russia and Norway have recently signed a deal over who owns what in the Barents Sea. The two
countries agreed to split the difference between their two claims, and divided the disputed area in
half. If any natural resources are found straddling the newly delineated boundary, the two states
will co-manage them.
However, as experience with the Spitsbergen Treaty shows that does not rule out the possibility
of renewed disputes in the future.
Other Disputes
The United States and Canada still disagree on the setting of the boundaries in the Beaufort Sea –
an area of intense interest to oil drillers.
Similarly, Canada has yet to resolve a dispute with Denmark over the ownership of Hans Island
and where the control line should be drawn in the strait between Greenland (whose sovereignty
remains with Denmark) and Ellesmere Island.
HFSMUN 2013 Study Guide
Militarization of the Arctic Region
The issue of preventing Militarization of the Arctic Sea
The Arctic is a region around the North Pole of the Earth, which includes the Arctic Ocean and
parts of Canada, Russia, the United States, Greenland, as a territory of Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Finland and Iceland.
Active Militarization
Current Situation:
As of today the Arctic ocean is re-emerging as a strategic area where vital interests of many
countries collide. The region’s political and economic significance, combined with its wealth in
natural resources, is transforming the Arctic into a subject of future disputes and conflicts.
Natural Resources:
It is estimated that the Arctic may contain a fifth of the world’s yet-to-be discovered oil and
natural gas reserves. The Arctic’s potential natural gas resources are three times bigger and equal
to Russia’s proven gas reserves, which are the world’s largest. Also, beside oil and gas, the Arctic
seabed could hold other natural wealth, such as significant deposits of precious stones – gold,
silver, copper, iron, platinum, lead, tin, nickel, manganese, zinc and even diamonds. In the current
state of global economy, demand for these commodities steadily increases. Furthermore, it has
been prove that there are large deposits of methane hydrates located on the deep seabed of the
Arctic Ocean.
While no technology currently exists that would make extracting them possible, the emergence of
this capability seems to be an imminent prospect. Several countries are interested in developing
methane hydrate processing as a commercially viable energy source, including the United States,
Japan, and South Korea.
Recent territorial claims:
The dispute over which country’s continental shelf extends to the Lomonosov Ridge is crucial in
determining which country has sovereign rights over the seabed around the North Pole.
In 2001 Russia submitted a claim for an area of 1.2 million square kilometers from the undersea
ridge called the Lomonosov Ridge that goes from Russias land to the North Pole. The United
Nations commission rejected this claim and said they needed more evidence. So in 2007 as a
response, Russia sent a team of scientists to gather information. During this expidition Russia also
dropped a capsule with their flag onto the seafloor. This symbolic act by the Russians suddenly
transformed the question of sovereign rights in the Arctic region from a purely scientific and legal
case into an urgent political issue. Russias conclusion was that their findings did actually confirm
that they had legal rights to the area and tried to announce that part of the North Pole as a part of
Russia. Many experts challenge this view, however, saying that this doesn’t necessarily mean that
the ridge is part of Russia – it could as well be Canadian or Danish.
Meanwhile, scientists from other Arctic nations are looking for evidence to support very different
versions of the truth about the Lomonosov Ridge. The Danish are attempting to prove that the
ridge is connected to Greenland and the Canadians are searching for connections between the
ridge and Canadian mainland. In 2007 the US started to investigate if they had any legitimate
claims on territory beyond what they already have. Lastly, in 2006 Norway followed Russia and
made claims on the arctic ocean, to extend the Norwegian 370 km zone in three areas. This was
accepted by the UN and Norway gained about 235,000 square kilometers.
Recent Militarization:
HFSMUN 2013 Study Guide
In August 2007, shortly after sending the scientific expedition to the Lomonosov Ridge that placed
the Russian flag on the seabed, Moscow ordered regular air patrols over the Arctic Ocean.
Strategic
bombers as well as the long-range anti- submarine warfare patrol aircraft have flown patrols since
then. American newspapers reported that Russian bombers penetrated the 12-mile air defense
identification zone surrounding Alaska several times since 2008. Also the Russian navy is
intensifying its patrols in the Arctic – this is the first such phenomenon since the end of the Cold
War.Moscow’s strategy seems to be to display its military might while invoking international law.
Russia has also raised a possibility of war in the Arctic within a decade over control of the regions
huge wealth of natural resources.
In response, NATO partners have started re-supply the Thule Air Base in Greenland. Another
example of this increased military attention given to the Arctic region is the strategic cooperation
between the United States and Canada in strengthening the North American Aerospace Defense
Command (NORAD). There are also plans in the United States to establish a Joint Task Force–
Arctic Region Command and an Arctic Coast Guard Forum modeled after the highly successful
North Pacific Coast Guard Forum. Canada joined the trend by announcing that it would build six to
eight navy patrol ships to guard the Northwest Passage, as well as two military bases and a
deepwater port inside the Arctic Circle.
Major Institutional Frameworks
Arctic Council
The Ottawa Declaration of 1996 formally established the Arctic Council as a high level
Intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and
interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic Indigenous communities
and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable
development and environmental protection in the Arctic.
The Arctic Council Member States are Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe
Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America.
In addition to the Member States, the Arctic Council has the category of Permanent Participants.
Barents Euro-Arctic Council
The Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) was established in 1993 by Iceland, Denmark, Norway,
Sweden, Finland, Russia, and the European Commission to foster regional co-operation, defuse
environmental (particularly nuclear) threats, and include Russia in multilateral bodies after the
break-up of the Soviet Union. BEAC is primarily concerned with promoting economic and social
development in the Barents Region. It initiates cross-border co-operation, which benefits from EU
regional assistance, and co-ordinates environmental programmes together with the EU in the
framework of its Northern Dimension initiative.
HFSMUN 2013 Study Guide
DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM
Militarization in the Region
Analysts have ventured predictions that the Arctic may turn into the cause for a Third World War;
as things stand, the race for a strong military presence in the region is leading to escalating
tensions at a time when relations are already tense because of unresolved territorial disputes. For
peaceful use of Arctic resources, not only is it crucial to develop an effective mechanism for
resource distribution, it is imperative to convince Arctic nations to diffuse their military presence
around the region. The reduction of nuclear weapons in the area is the critical place to start.
The Environment
It is essential to remember that the Arctic issue is becoming particularly pressing because of global
warming, and the consequent opening up of new sea routes along with more easily available oil
and natural gas. This creates a two-fold issue with regards to environmental conservation. Firstly,
it is likely that the prospect of an increase in oil and natural gas supplies in the short term will
detract Arctic nation governments from curbing energy demand and investment and research into
alternate sources of energy. If anything, the clear benefits of melting Arctic ice may actually prove
to be a disincentive to combatting global warming. Secondly, and more worryingly, drilling for
Arctic resources, as
well as the possible increase in traffic in the Arctic Ocean is almost certain to damage an already
fragile ecosystem. The presence of nuclear submarines further complicates this issue, by making
radioactive pollution a very real possibility.
Both these factors interact with each other to form a vicious cycle of environmental damage that
gives impetus to territorial disputes and militarization, which in turn wreak ecological havoc of
their own. This makes the peaceful use of Arctic resources a particularly complex issue – a delicate
balance of environmental protection and global security must be achieved.
NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will also serve as an important player on this issue,
given its statutory aim of ensuring the safety of its members and providing them with means of
collective defense in case of a hostile action by an external party. Five Arctic countries are
members of the NATO – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and the United States – and the
Organization treats the region as one of immense significance for the security of its members, and
thus the NATO attempts to expand its presence in the Arctic Ocean by creating military bases
there. Therefore, the NATO is an important actor to be considered when making decisions about
the future of the region.
POINTS RESOLUTIONS SHOULD ADDRESS
Delegates are expected to reflect upon and evaluate past actions, and critically consider the
actions taken by the Security Council in the past and to construct new solutions for the future. It is
eventually up to delegates to shape the clauses of potential resolutions, yet here are some areas
worthy of consideration:
The amendment of the UNCLOS, or the creation of a new region specific international agreement;
The creation of an effective legal and institutional mechanism within which to settle claims for
territorial sovereignty;
The status of the Arctic Ocean – should it be regarded as international waters in its entirety, or
should any national restrictions be considered legitimate?
HFSMUN 2013 Study Guide
The military presence in the Arctic, and its possible reduction; The status of the Arctic natural
environment and ecosystem; The position of indigenous people living in the Arctic region.