https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0240-1970
In June 2022, the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS) organised a set of events to conclude the Regulating Shipping in Russian Arctic Waters: Between International Law, National Interests and Geopolitics (SIRAW) project. The three-year project investigated the evolution of the legal regime of shipping in the Russian Arctic in the context of climate change, Russia’s security concerns, and relevant international political and legal processes.
The initial idea behind the event was to address the theme of Russia’s influence on the international legal and political processes, such as the Polar Code, Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) and bilateral cooperation. More specifically, the intention was to discuss the impact of Russia’s policy and practice on the further development and implementation of the Polar Code, and the potential implications of Russia’s attitude towards the BBNJ process for the governance of Arctic shipping.
The war in Ukraine forced a recalibration of the focus and illuminated the need to reflect on more fundamental issues for international relations and international law. Acting upon the premise that the war in Ukraine would have a major impact on the future interaction between Russia and other States and the conditions for Arctic cooperation and governance, the event facilitated an expert discussion on these impacts on the governance of the Northern Sea Route (NSR).
The conference was divided into two sessions: an open seminar to address the big picture and a closed workshop to discuss more specific issues. The first panel was opened by a thought-provoking talk on Changes in the world order, the Ukraine war, and Arctic order: The first – and last – war of globalisation and the post-global by Professor Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen, Barents Chair in Politics, UiT. Bertelsen’s central message was that the Arctic order follows the world order. The shift from the international liberal order (marked by the US unipolarity) to the realist one (marked by Sino-US bipolarity) will inevitably complicate the prospects of resolving problems that require concerted action, such as climate change. The global post-unipolar order may lead to a much more violent post-global Arctic.
Another topic of fundamental general importance is Russia’s approach to international law and the implications for the Arctic legal order. Professor Lauri Mälksoo from the University of Tartu shared his insight on the Soviet and Russian historical approaches to international law, paying specific attention to the normative clash between a universal and a regional understanding of international law. While Russia recognises some features of international law as universal (the traditional principles of State sovereignty and non-intervention, as enshrined in the UN Charter), they are subject to regional interpretation. The prime example of such ‘qualification’ to international law is the post-Soviet space, where Russia regrets accepting the sovereignty of States breaking out of the USSR. There are no similar territorial stakes in the Arctic region, making it different from the post-Soviet space. However, Russian discourse on Arctic affairs often alludes to the notions of exceptionalism and regionalism.
The first day was concluded with two presentations addressing more specific issues of the Northern Sea Route. Arild Moe, research professor at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), focused on the economic prospects for the NSR, noting a mismatch between the ambitious visions and actual realities and that international shipping hardly ever took off. The current situation brings only more challenges and uncertainties for realising Moscow’s ambitious plans, as both the production of Russian hydrocarbons and the demand for them are uncertain.
Jan Solski, a postdoc at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea, discussed the trends in the regulatory approaches of the Russian authorities concerning the NSR. While the period between 2012 and 2018 could be characterised by the efforts to liberalise access and maximise transparency of the legal regime of navigation on the NSR, the last few years showed a sign of regress. The authorities still promote the ambitious plans of the NSR’s development, but the regulatory focus rests on optimising the management efforts for domestic purposes. There is a trade-off between transparency and centralisation of management, and the current policies favour the latter.
During the second day, the participants engaged in a workshop, with discussions surrounding the presentations by experts in international law and international relations. In the first talk, Pierre Thévenin, a doctoral candidate at the University of Tartu, discussed the applicable passage rights through the Russian Arctic Straits based on the findings from Russian historical archives. His research is a prime example of how historical research has become necessary. In September 2022, the Russian Duma is discussing a draft law to substantiate Russia’s claims in the Arctic straits by requiring foreign State-owned vessels to seek prior authorisation for passage. The analysis of historical Soviet State practice is instrumental for determining the legality of the current practice of the Russian Federation regarding the legal status of waters in the Russian straits.
One of the objectives of the SIRAW project has been to compare Russia’s policy and practice with Canada’s. Professor Aldo Chircop, Canada Research Chair in Maritime Law and Policy from the Dalhousie University, Schulich School of Law, discussed the potential legal issues of the low-impact shipping corridors in Canadian Arctic waters. The corridors initiative might offer an innovative and pragmatic way to ensure the maritime safety of ships passing through areas subject to controversial Canadian claims, in a manner that reconciles shipping with indigenous rights. As the idea has recently gained traction within the Canadian government, Chircop points to several potential legal issues.
Tiziana Melchiorre, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow at the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (ACELG), discussed the nexus between geopolitics and international law with the example of the Akademik Lomonosov – a floating nuclear power plant recently launched to operate in the Russian Arctic. This vivid example points to the intersection of geopolitics, international law, geography, technology, and the natural environment. As the Ukraine war and the collateral energy crisis illustrate, similar thinking may apply to other, less emblematic examples of energy infrastructure.
The topics of the final two presentations demonstrate how important it has become to reflect on the role of newcomers, particularly China, when discussing geopolitics and law in the Arctic. Marc Lanteigne, Associate Professor at the Department of Social Sciences, UiT, discussed the Chinese views of the Polar Silk Road and current policy challenges. Mariia Kobzeva, a postdoc at the Department of Social Sciences, UiT, presented China’s rights in the Arctic in the new political reality
An interesting discussion focused on China’s prospects for obtaining legitimacy as an actor in the changing regime in the Arctic. There are apparent gaps between the amount of effort China put into obtaining an observer status of the Arctic Council and its subsequent activity, as well as between the potential and actual impacts of the Polar Silk Road on Chinese aspirations towards the Arctic. The disentanglement between Russia and the other Arctic States (A7) complicates the situation further, and it remains to be seen which of the camps offers a more viable window for advancing China’s interests and strengthening its case for being perceived as a legitimate actor.
An overall impression from the two days conference and expert interactions was that the war in Ukraine catalysed some of the processes that started before. The world order has been changing due to the relative shifts in global power and the move away from the post-cold war unipolar moment. In this context, the war in Ukraine is more a symptom than a cause. Moreover, there is a degree of continuity between the Soviet and Russian approaches to international law. Russia’s struggle with the economic development of the Arctic, as well as the more inward regulatory perspective, precedes the war. Finally, the war in Ukraine made the geopolitical dimension of energy production and supply and the uncertainties of the future Arctic relationship between China, Russia, and the West only more vivid.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).