The Arctic is a very unique area, since it is mostly composed by water and islands in the north pole of the globe. It has a singular marine ecosystem and, opposed to Antarctica, is habitable. The eight States that have sea rights over the Arctic region (United States, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Russia) have been able, through the Arctic Council, to solve sovereignty issues over the years. However, the melting of the Arctic ice as a result of global warming has brought new issues to the international community, and to the Arctic Council. According to Nicholas Parlato and Zia Madani (2024):

The Arctic is at a pivotal moment, where ecological changes and geopolitical interests are converging to reshape its future. With climate change accelerating sea ice loss, permafrost thaw, and coastal erosion, the region’s delicate marine and freshwater systems are transforming in ways that directly impact the lives, cultures, and livelihoods of its coastal and Indigenous communities. As the Arctic becomes more accessible and strategically significant on the global stage, pressures mount to govern its resources within frameworks that may not adequately reflect the region's socioecological particularities.

As the ice melts, serious consequences can be brought upon the environment, since it contributes to the warming oceans and sea-level rise. This causes risks to the marine ecosystem, increases the consequences of the climate change, allows the spread of diseases (the permafrost holds dangerous pathogens that could be released as a result of the melting) and harm the lives of the natives of the Arctic area.

 Besides, new navigation routs become possible, which contributes to disputes concerning mineral resources exploration and political control in the area of the Arctic waters. According to Kenneth et. al. (2008), it is estimated that the Arctic has a significant amount of undiscovered oil and gas, which stimulates the States to explore it by expanding their influence in the area through military presence and data gathering, for example. For Ensign Benjamin Chiaccia (2020), this situation has several risks:

The warming of the Arctic poses significant environmental and security risks, both for the residents above the Arctic circle and for nation-states hoping to expand their economic or military presence in the region. While environmental governance remains contentious, the potential security and economic risks posed by Arctic competition may provide an incentive for the Arctic nations to act.

Unlike Antarctica, which has the 1959 Treaty regulating its use by the States, the Arctic does not have a specific regulation, since its area is mostly composed by water. Because of that, the Arctic is primarily governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the eight States that have legal sea rights over the area are the main ones seeking to explore it by the maximum. Although not a member of the Arctic Council, China is another State that is exploring new trade routes in the region, such as the Polar Silk Road project.

However, it is important to note that an equal agreement to the Antarctica Treaty would not benefit the Arctic, since they are very different locations, with unique necessities. The Antarctica region is primarily inhabited by scientific researchers, does not have a native population and no State is allowed to claim sovereignty over it, according to the Antarctica Treaty System (ATS). To Timo Koivurova (2008), not only the geographic differences between the Arctic and the Antarctica brings difficulties to make a similar treaty to Arctic, but also the fact that several sovereign States would have to come to an agreement is a challenge:

Drawing inspiration from the ATS to design an Arctic treaty is problematic in many respects. First and foremost is the vast difference in the legal basis on which the two polar regimes have been created. The presence of territorial sovereigns in the Arctic does not allow much room to develop a collective model like the one in the ATS, since it is precisely the non-presence of territorial sovereigns in the Antarctic that has enabled the creation of the present ATS. The other idea is to design an Arctic treaty on the basis of inspiration from the ATS, which is also hard to defend. The argument that international society, or at least a more extensive group of countries than the Arctic States (as in the Arctic Region Council proposal), would be able to conclude a comprehensive protection treaty for the Arctic seems extremely optimistic, given the presence of eight territorial sovereigns eagerly protecting and even trying to enlarge their jurisdictional domain.

In this scenario of political disputes, the indigenous peoples that are native from the Arctic (there are more than 40 different indigenous groups in the area) suffer with difficult access to freshwater, sanitary conditions, medical aid and food. The military presence in the Arctic region from States regularly happens without prior consent from the natives (Silva, L. B. R., 2025), and several climate initiatives proposals not only bring potential harm to the ecosystem, but also usually dismiss indigenous people’s opinions (Parlatos; Madani, 2024). It is important to note that indigenous peoples are participants in the Arctic Council, but still have their rights marginalized, since they do not have decision power. According to Shaugn Coggins, James D. Ford, et. al. (2021):

The Arctic is warming considerably faster than the rest of the world and will witness the most climate change globally this century. Approximately ten percent of the Arctic’s four million inhabitants who identify as Indigenous experience disproportionate risks to these impacts, as they generally live in remote regions and maintain strong links to the environment through subsistence-oriented hunting, herding, foraging, and fishing.

With this background, is an Arctic Treaty necessary, amidst the complex scenario that climate change brought to this region? Although the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) seeks to secure the native’s rights to self-determination, and several international frameworks and principles could be applied to protect the Arctic indigenous people’s interests, the creation of an Arctic Treaty may be important for this area governance to be cooperative and to preserve the native’s rights in a collaborative manner, and not in a neocolonial tone.

It is important to note that the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) came into fruition in 2023 and is able to positively impact on the Arctic governance concerning the protection of the marine environment.

Approximately 20% of the Arctic ocean is beyond national jurisdiction, and the BBNJ agreement will be an important tool in the present and future years, since its binding legal nature is able to preserve the unique and vulnerable Arctic marine ecosystem, which is suffering huge impacts caused by the global warming and climate change. Also, the possible creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Arctic Ocean will certainly be beneficial to preserve its ecosystem.

However, it may be not enough to cover all the current political disputes in the area. The Arctic region constitutes a very complex land, with distinctive and multilevel issues, ecosystem and political tension. Their natives are culturally deeply connected to the land, and the geopolitical disputes brought by the melting ice of the region only increased their vulnerabilities. Although some regional agreements, such as the Illulisat Declaration, from 2008, are very important to the governance in the region, the climate changes brought several new issues that need to be properly addressed.

Not only the area beyond jurisdiction must be preserved and regulated, but also it is important to have an agreement between the members of the Arctic Council and all those who are directly affected by the ice melting, marine resources exploration and new navigation routes, as the natives. A binding treaty, with enforcement nature, may be necessary for it to be possible for an Arctic governance that respects the indigenous people’s traditional knowledge and integrate them in the decision process to exist.

This could lead to a cooperative, collective governance in the Arctic, one that promotes an integration between all the matters that concerns the use of the Arctic resources and that aggregate the native’s interests in the discussions, since the melting of the permafrost and ice caps will affect the whole globe. However, combining all the interests of the members of the Arctic Council to create an Arctic Treaty in these terms will certainly be a challenge.