Even if these disagreements persist, there may not be any real pressure to clarify Svalbard`s status. In peacetime, States are often happy to overcome legal ambiguities in pursuit of their narrow-minded interests. Despite very real tensions, Norway and Russia have a long history of letting the other act as they wish on Spitsbergen while issuing official protests to obtain future legal claims. Both players understand the rules of this long-standing game. Despite having very different political systems and strategic perspectives, Norway and Russia are intensely socialized with each other and maintain a functional bilateral relationship. This relationship, which necessarily involves the occasional exchange of sharp diplomatic statements, conditioned the lasting success of the Svalbard Treaty. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea plays an important role in addressing the legal and political problems of the Arctic. Currently, Denmark, Norway, Canada and Russia use UNCLOS to articulate their legal claims to the Arctic Ocean and seabed. Since the United States is not a party to the treaty, it does not have the official position in this important initiative to the benefit of other nations.
The provisions of UNCLOS, which allow for regulation in particular on the continental shelf, exclusive economic zones, the international seabed and high seas areas, offer a number of advantages to strengthen the claims of States Parties on these issues (Yılmaz & Çiftçi, 2013:8). Under article 76 of UNCLOS and its annexes, it is possible to extend the continental shelf under certain conditions. As the continental shelf of one of the Arctic states expands, so will its sovereign territory (www.un.org) (Intext hatası). For this, however, it is necessary to determine the area of the continental shelf. To extend continental shelves in the Arctic, a scientific study of the seabed is needed (Yılmaz and Çiftçi, 2013:9). The Arctic, which is one of the politically and legally contested regions, is not subject to any regulation under international law and its final sovereignty over it has not been determined by the littoral States. Due to global climate change in recent years, the melting of glaciers in the region and therefore their accessibility have made the Arctic a competitive arena between major powers. This has led to a change in the conditions of competition in Russia and the United States. This study will analyse the legal situation in the Arctic and the Russian-American rivalry in the Arctic and the policy of these two states towards the region within the framework of international law. The Council shall also admit external observers to its meetings.
Indigenous peoples in the Arctic have the status of permanent participants. In 2009, China, the European Union, Italy and South Korea applied for permanent observer status, but this was refused, at least in part, because the Council is divided over the role of observer states. There is growing recognition that actions in the Arctic can have significant impacts. Japan, China and the European Union have made significant economic investments in the Arctic Ocean – interests that are only growing due to increased oil and gas exploration and the opening of northern sea lanes. There is a need for a uniform international regime in the Arctic. This may include either the recognition and application of existing norms of the law of the sea in the Arctic, or the adoption of a separate comprehensive legal document on the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic, which is one of the regions where final sovereignty is not established in the world, was not governed by international law and is still governed by the rules of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The region, whose status has not been clarified by a special treaty, occasionally becomes a source of tension because of this uncertainty. With the melting of glaciers, the emergence of new energy resources and the benefits to be derived from shipping have increased the interests of the countries of the region, and serious conflicts have arisen over the international status and sovereignty of Arctic territories.
Exploring Arctic reserves has become a strategic priority for Russia, one of the world`s largest exporters of oil and gas. On the other hand, the United States, which sees Russia`s presence in the Arctic as a threat, seeks to have a say in the region. Norway, Russia and other interested parties have long been aware of the legal ambiguity. Recently, however, the issue has become urgent as climate change, along with economic and technological developments, have prompted them to respond to their divergent interpretations. These cases could have effects that go beyond fishing rights: snow crabs classified as sedentary species have the same status as mineral resources under contemporary international law. Thus, court decisions on crabs may set a precedent for access to the subsoil of this hydrocarbon-rich area. A snow crab fisheries dispute between Norway and the EU could have profound implications for other Svalbard claims. After the EU issued licences to fish for snow crabs around Svalbard in 2013, Norway declared the move illegal and issued a fishing ban in 2015 with exemptions for some Norwegian vessels.
Enforcement of the ban continues: in 2017, Norway stopped a Latvian vessel that was operating trawling with an EU licence and imposed a fine, provoking furious protests from EU officials and the fisheries lobby. EU shrimp fishing in this area is now frozen, as vessels avoid the area for fear of being stopped. In another case in 2016, Norwegian authorities seized a Lithuanian vessel harvesting snow crabs in international waters further off the coast of the archipelago. The decision was overturned by a Norwegian court. In May 2017, the eight Arctic states signed the Agreement to Strengthen International Arctic Science Cooperation at the 10th Arctic Council Ministerial Conference in Fairbanks, Alaska. This is the third legally binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council. The agreement facilitates access for scientists from the eight Arctic states to the Arctic areas identified by each state, including the entry and exit of people, equipment and materials; access to research infrastructure and facilities; and access to research areas. The agreement also calls on the parties to promote the education and training of scientists working on Arctic issues. One of the most controversial legal debates among Arctic states is the applicability of the right of transit through international straits to the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route. The Northwest Passage is the much-sought-after sea route from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, connecting Canada`s islands in the Far North.