عنوان مقاله [English]
According to the historical course of this region, the North Pole was claimed in 1909 by Canada and in 1924 by the United States of America. Then the Soviet Union also continued this process and made a territorial claim in this region due to its geographical proximity. It was at this time that this country seized the Bering Strait and the Kola Peninsula. Since 1930, this area has been considered from a military point of view. For example, Canada and the United States implemented defense-oriented plans under the pretext of an all-out threat from the Russians. In the middle of World War II, the North Pole was a breeding ground for German and Russian submarines to advance their military goals. After the Second World War, at the height of the Cold War, the North Pole was also a place of dispute and became of strategic and military importance for the governments. With the escalation of these differences, the strategic importance of the region took on a political and security color. As mentioned, the melting of the ice in this region (due to global warming), the three basic and key points of security, easy access to sea routes (creating new waterways) and energy (oil and gas) became the subject of discussion and disagreement between governments.
In fact, global warming has dramatically affected the Arctic region. By evaluating the climate effects of the North Pole in 2004, it can be concluded that the temperature of this region will increase by 4 to 7 degrees by the end of this century. At the same time as this study, another study was conducted and they came to the conclusion that by 2040 all the Arctic glaciers will melt. However, with the intensification of the global warming crisis and the disregard of world powers to this issue (including the United States), the process of ice melting is taking place at a faster rate. According to their capabilities, countries are trying to prove their sovereignty over the Arctic region and protect their interests in that region. Especially Russia's provocative actions and raising its flag in the North Pole have aggravated the differences.
This research has been done in a scientific-research method. Scientific research is the way that research is done on the topic in question according to valid scientific methods. On the other hand, this research has been done in a descriptive-analytical way, because according to the sources, the existing facts have been expressed and then the analysis and reasoning about these events has been done. Because this research is a library work, the political, legal and environmental importance of the Arctic region and its governance by the Arctic Council in the framework of international law have been discussed. Based on this, some sources have been discussed and research has been done on this matter through the available sources in English, Turkish and Farsi languages.
The Arctic does not yet have specific sovereignty in international law. Countries around the Arctic have divisions of authority. Unlike Antarctica, the region does not yet have a convention on sovereignty and environmental issues and resource utilization, and therefore no progress has been made in the region due to tensions between sovereign states. The strategic importance of the Arctic is not recognized by countries, and only governments recognize the region's oil and gas resources. One of the reasons why the Arctic is important is the area's access to the high seas. With the gradual warming of land and the melting of polar ice, it has facilitated the extraction of underground resources and easy access to the maritime routes of the area, affecting global geopolitics. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this paper attempts to explain the political importance of this region among governments and to examine the legal challenges to the Arctic with respect to international law. The results show that the region faces border disputes, increased military might and coastal claims. The legal status of this region in accordance with international law is subject to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. This area, which has not yet been established by a special agreement or treaty, has always been prone to tension and conflict between countries, especially coastal countries. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas cannot completely fill the void in the Arctic, but it can be filled with cooperation between governments. In this regard, the Arctic Council can compensate for the existing gaps in addition to its duties, including maintaining the ecological cover of the region and resolving disputes and tensions between governments. In order to realize this, it is necessary to expand the scope of jurisdiction and better organization of this council. However, despite the effectiveness of the Arctic Council, due to the special geographical situation of this region, the permanent solution of its problems and issues should be possible with an independent and comprehensive treaty for this region. A treaty that takes into account the specific geographical characteristics of the region and provides a comprehensive and permanent solution including freedom of trade, free passage, protection of the flora and fauna of the region, introduction as a free and common area for all nations, joint exploitation of resources. Determining the legal status and territorial and territorial disputes of the coastal countries, prohibiting the military presence of the countries, solving the issues related to the Arctic continental plateau and respecting the human rights of the native communities of the region and its administration by them, etc. can solve a large part of its problems. To resolve and prevent disputes and widespread regional and international tensions. This solution should include two parts before the polar ice melts and after the polar ice melts. Because currently the polar ices of this region have not melted and cannot be considered as the open sea according to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. This is the reason why the need for a legal regime or a special treaty for this region is felt for joint administration and solving its problems. Of course, this treaty can be under the supervision of the United Nations and with the advice and provision of a solution by the Arctic Council and by taking into account some rules of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the end, the Arctic legal regime or the Arctic Comprehensive Treaty can be the end point of these problems and dilemmas in this region.