Who Owns the Arctic? The Arctic States & Role Of The Arctic Council

Political jurisdiction over the Arctic is complicated, to put it mildly. After all, much of the area north of the Arctic Circle is seawater (extensively ice-covered seawater for a good chunk of the year, but seawater nonetheless). Just who owns the Arctic Ocean?

It’s safe to say that what has been, for the past several centuries, a complex issue has only become more complex in our current one. That, in large part, is because the Arctic has become dramatically more accessible over that timeframe, and—given the trajectory of climate change—access is only likely to expand further in the coming decades. The prospects for increased maritime traffic and resource exploitation at the top of the world are certainly heightening the potential for Arctic territory disputes; indeed, they’re already heating up (so to speak).

In this article, we’ll lay out in simple terms the basics of Arctic geopolitics and note how some of the international codes and conventions apply to cruise tourism in the magical Far North.

National Sovereignty in the Arctic & the Law of the Sea

Given the geographical Eight nations have territory in the Arctic region, composing the so-called “Arctic States.” They are:

• Canada
• Denmark (Greenland; the Faroe Islands)
• Finland
• Iceland
• Norway
• Russia
• Sweden
• United States of America

These countries maintain sovereignty over their own Arctic landmasses, of course—from the North Slope of Alaska to the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard and the poleward reaches of Russia’s Republic of Sakha (aka Yakutia). But for the coastal Arctic states—Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the U.S.—that jurisdiction, to varying degrees, also extends offshore from the nation’s baseline, which is generally the low-water mark, into the Arctic Ocean in the form of a country’s territorial waters.

This buffer region comprises a number of different zones where, roughly speaking, the extent of national control diminishes (but remains, to one degree or another, in effect) with distance from shore/baseline. The dozen nautical miles off a coastal Arctic State’s baseline fall within that country’s Territorial Sea, where it enjoys sovereignty over everything from the seabed and “subsoil” up through the water column to the airspace above. (There are allowances within the Territorial Sea for foreign seagoing vessels and, to a certain extent, aircraft.)

Beyond the Territorial Sea, from 12 to 24 nautical miles offshore, an Arctic State has partial authority over its Contiguous Zone: limited controls mainly to do with customs and the like.

Outward to a maximum of 200 nautical miles spreads the nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone, which confers a variety of rights concerning the exploitation and conservation of marine natural resources, and control over structures with an economic intent.

Overlapping with the Exclusive Economic Zone is the Continental Shelf, the legal definition of which under international law differs somewhat from the geologic/geomorphic one. This zone extends either to the far edge of the nation’s continental margin—or to 200 nautical miles should the continental margin in question not slope that far. Continental margins that extend past 200 miles may be the subject of claims by countries under the terms of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNLOSC), which we’ll dig into shortly.

Beyond Borders: Into The High Seas

Beyond the Continental Shelf/Exclusive Economic Zone, lie the officially defined High Seas, the saltwater realms outside national jurisdictions and accounting for some 60% of Planet Earth’s ocean basins. And, more pertinent to our discussion, accounting for a decent share of the Arctic!

The UNLOSC, often simply referred to as the Law of the Sea Convention or (even more simply) the Law of the Sea, is a United Nations effort that went into effect in 1994. Sometimes called the “constitution for the oceans,” it helps direct much of the code of conduct when it comes to countries’ use of the World Ocean, from territorial waters to the High Seas. The Law of the Sea Convention’s High Seas Treaty, primarily focused on biodiversity, conservation, and sustainability of those international waters, came into force in January 2026, and applies to much of the Arctic Ocean (namely, the central Arctic Ocean).

When coastal Arctic States request that their legally defined Continental Shelf extend beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit, the issue’s handled under the UNLOSC by the Committee on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).

Other Pertinent International Treaties, Laws, & Conventions at Play in the Arctic

A variety of other international agreements, laws, codes, and organizations help regulate and influence goings-on in the Arctic. These range from the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and various fishing controls (such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission) to the Polar Code—officially, the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, which, under the International Maritime Organization (IMO), regulates nautical activity in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic.

And speaking of nautical activity, the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO) sets standards and guidelines for expedition cruises at the top of the world. (You can learn more about AECO here.) Here at Antarctica Cruises, we exclusively work with operators who are members of AECO!

Managing Multi-Ownership: The Arctic Council & The Arctic Five

An intergovernmental, “quasi-international” body, the Arctic Council, which was created by the Ottawa Declaration in 1996, facilitates cooperation between national and other stakeholders in the Arctic. Arctic Council members include not only of all eight of the Arctic States, which have decision-making power on the Council, but also six Indigenous organizations classed as Permanent Participants—among them the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, and the Saami Council—and a variety of non-profit organizations and other official observers. The Arctic Council has generated a number of binding international agreements and treaties, including the Agreement on Cooperation & Rescue in the Arctic and the Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation.

The work of the Arctic Council is primarily carried out through six specialized working groups. These groups focus on scientific research, environmental protection, and the sustainable development of the Arctic region. The six working groups are:

• ACAP (Arctic Contaminants Action Program): Focuses on preventing and reducing pollution in the Arctic.
• AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme): Monitors the Arctic environment, ecosystems, and the impacts of climate change.
• CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna): Addresses the conservation of Arctic biodiversity and ecosystems.
• EPPR (Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response): Acts as a cooperative framework for responding to environmental emergencies, search and rescue, and pollution incidents.
• PAME (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment): Focuses on the protection, sustainable use, and management of the Arctic marine environment.
• SDWG (Sustainable Development Working Group): Works to improve the living conditions, health, and overall well-being of Arctic communities and indigenous peoples.

The coastal Arctic States, meanwhile, have also organized themselves as the so-called Arctic Five (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the U.S.), mustered to address issues of mutual concern. There’s some tension between the full Arctic Council and the Arctic Five, given the latter involves fewer stakeholders (excluding, for one thing, Indigenous organizations) in its considerations and also has a less restrictive purview: The Arctic Council is, by the terms of the Ottawa Declaration, confined to “issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic,” while the Arctic Five has no such limitation.

Geopolitical Issues in the Arctic

From deep-sea mining to the possibility of more efficient maritime shipping, a warming, opening-up Arctic presents no shortage of complicated geopolitical situations, to a degree this generally remote region—homeland, of course, to many dozens of Indigenous cultures—hasn’t experienced before.

Certainly one of the trickier issues involving Arctic sovereignty laws these days are the aforementioned requests by coastal Arctic States for legal Continental-Shelf extensions. There may be overlapping or competing UNCLOS Arctic claims of this kind between nations, for example, as well as different definitions of seabed features and resources.

Another potential area of dispute concerns the two great sea roads that thread through the Arctic: the Northwest Passage in North America and the Northeast Passage (or Northern Sea Route) in Eurasia. Canada has claimed sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, which it considers part of its internal waters, and Russia has done the same with regard to sections of the Northeast Passage. This position is challenged by some other Arctic States, including the U.S., which considers these routes to be international straits open to transit passage. Given the significant reductions in Arctic sea ice we’ve seen in recent decades, these shipping routes are increasingly more accessible, so these contrary positions may lead to intensified conflict in the future.

Discounting Discovery: Nothing for Nobile (or Italy)

But what about ownership of the North Pole? Do those who verifiably reached it first and laid their nation’s flag’s there hold any legal claim at all? As we’ve outlined in our post on who was first to reach the North Pole, the cosmopolitan crew of the Norge holds the official distinction of being the first to definitively reach the top of the world in 1926—a crew led by Norwegian polar explorer Roald Amundsen, Italian airship designer and pilot Umberto Nobile, and American adventurer Lincoln Ellsworth. All three threw their respective nation’s flags out over the pole (Nobile’s Italy flag larger than the rest!) so should they all have valid claims? One could imagine Norway and the US potentially having legitimate claims given their geographical presence in the Arctic, but what of Italy, a country as close to the Equator as it is the Arctic in places?

The argument is moot as the geographic North Pole sits on drifting sea ice within international waters. Under UNCLOS, these waters and the deep ocean floor beneath them are classified as the High Seas, so “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty”—including the resources of the seabed—meaning historical discovery, exploration, or ice-surface occupations provide absolutely no legal basis for territorial claims.

It is worth noting that Italy is, however, an active participant in Arctic affairs strictly on matters of diplomacy and science rather than territorial claims, having held Observer Status on the Arctic Council since 2013, and still maintain a major permanent Arctic research outpost in Svalbard, which they aptly named the Dirigibile Italia (Airship Italy) research station to honor Nobile’s legacy.

The Arctic in the Raw

The Arctic is changing—no question about it. And there are many thorny topics to be addressed as it changes, becoming more accessible—and exploitable—than ever before.

But it’s important to remember that this mighty Northland encompasses dimensions beyond political boundaries and disputes: dimensions that include myriad Indigenous voices, and an ancient rhythm of land, sea, ice, and wildlife that remains awe-inspiring to any who hear it—who feel it—firsthand.

That’s what a cruise with us promises: the chance to commune with a place that feels, as few other swaths of this planet do, relatively untouched by the heavier hand of humankind (while touched by millennia of Native lifeways).