Political differences between Arctic states and competing goals doom bilateral approach to resolving disputes

Problematically, despite the increasingly obvious nature of the Arctic jurisdiction quandary, there exists a fair degree of disagreement on how to view Arctic both within the channels of government and academia.⁹⁸ These fundamental differences of opinion doom a potential bilateral solution, because a treaty between one or more states would necessarily require disambiguation and a clarification on where each party stands.⁹⁹ At a basic level, bilateral negotiations and a treaty mechanism will fail for three primary reasons. First, there is simply too much at stake in terms of both economic benefit and environmental risk: no state wants to assume liability for the wide range of environmental catastrophes that may befall energy developers,¹⁰⁰ nor does any state want to negotiate away a potential energy windfall either.¹⁰¹ Thus, given the great uncertainties of the Arctic, there is little incentive for states to constrain their EEZ claims via treaty, even though the need for a governance regime for the Arctic is becoming all the more necessary as time goes on. Second, the diplomats and leaders of the coastal Arctic states have explicitly provided in one form or another that the current status quo is enough, thus a bilateral treaty is unlikely to arise on its own.¹⁰² Furthermore, a bilateral treaty would likely undermine whatever cooperation may exist between the coastal Arctic states by forcing a confrontation over the various boundaries, a confrontation that no one wants to have. Third, despite scholars' and politicians' insistence that nothing is wrong in the Arctic, the truth may be a little more nuanced for several reasons. Historically, the Arctic has been a theater of military tension and political gamesmanship,¹⁰³ and despite current trends, there is no geopolitical guarantee that such tensions may not arise again.¹⁰⁴ To illustrate this point, Arctic powers have begun to project their military power in the High North, for example, Russia has been building a large fleet of icebreakers to guard their interests.¹⁰⁵ In this vein perhaps, the Russian Federation may have the most to lose and the most to gain in the Arctic Ocean¹⁰⁶, even though Russia's interests may be in direct conflict with some of the interests of Scandanavian states.¹⁰⁷ Thus, not only is a bilateral solution untenable, but there is some evidence to suggest that a multilateral mechanism may bear fruit.¹⁰⁸ To solve the problem of Arctic territorial claims, multilateral fora like the Arctic Council and the NATO-Russia Council may be excellent environs for crafting a new solution.