The Arctic in Focus: The Role of Dialogue Between Law and Science

Egor Fedorov, Head of Research Projects at the ICLRC (Law of the Sea), took part in the Ocean Connectivity Conference, held as part of UArctic Congress 2026 in the Faroe Islands.

For reference:

• Ocean Connectivity Conference is an international conference devoted to the interconnectedness of Arctic marine areas and to issues of their use, governance, and conservation. The Conference was organized by the Kingdom of Denmark’s Chairship of the Arctic Council (2025–2027) and embedded in the programme of UArctic Congress 2026.

• UArctic Congress is an international biennial event of the University of the Arctic (UArctic), which brings together representatives of the academic community, Indigenous Peoples, policymakers, and experts working on Arctic issues.

The Arctic and the legal issues arising in connection with it are among the ICLRC’s principal research areas. Research in this field has been carried out since the very beginning of the Center’s work.

Work on Arctic issues shows particularly clearly that legal knowledge alone is insufficient for meaningful analysis. It is also necessary to take into account the region’s scientific, social, economic, and governance dimensions. For lawyers, it is important not to confine themselves exclusively to the text of legal rules: law, including international law, operates within a particular environment.

In the Arctic, such environment is shaped by changing ice conditions, fragile ecosystems, limited infrastructure, the interests of Arctic coastal States and non-Arctic States, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and other factors that may affect the regulation and legal regime of certain activities in the Arctic.

Unfortunately, lawyers are often distant from the practical realities of the region and from the scientific aspects of the processes taking place there. I am no exception. That is why, when deciding to attend the event in the Faroe Islands, I foresaw that I was not simply going to another academic conference. For me, it was an opportunity to evidence how the Arctic is discussed today by specialists from different fields: not only lawyers, but also climatologists, oceanographers, ecologists, biologists, geographers, representatives of Indigenous Peoples and Northern Communities, as well as experts working on issues of Arctic governance and resource management.

At the same time, participation in the conference showed as well that specialists from fields other than law would also benefit from more frequent discussions of the Arctic with those who understand the law. Some speakers from non-legal disciplines, when discussing legal regulation or existing mechanisms of cooperation in the Arctic, at times made statements that were not entirely accurate or were overly simplified.

An interesting fact: around 1,400 people took part in the conference. At the same time, the population of Tórshavn, the capital of the Faroe Islands, where the event was held, is about 12,000, while the population of the Faroe Islands as a whole is about 55,000. The conference became the largest event ever held in the Faroe Islands.

The main themes of the Ocean Connectivity Conference included sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity conservation, international cooperation in the Arctic, as well as issues concerning Indigenous Peoples and Northern Communities. In total, the programme comprised around 60 sessions on different topics.

Participation in the sessions as a speaker required a selection process. My proposal to present on “Marine Spatial Planning as a Risk Governance Tool for the Arctic Future Toward 2050” was accepted for the session “Navigating Arctic Futures: Ocean Dynamics and Shipping Toward 2050”.

The session itself revolved around the question of how areas of Arctic Ocean circulation, ice conditions, and shipping routes may change by 2050, and what this will mean for navigation, maritime safety, infrastructure development, and international cooperation. Alongside me and one other colleague with a legal background, the session featured specialists working at the intersection of climate research, oceanography, sea-ice studies, and the modelling of navigational accessibility.

Among the main points I made were the following ideas, which in part drew on the ICLRC’s research paper “Marine Spatial Planning: International and National Regulation”:

• The Arctic is obviously changing. Declining sea ice may make certain Arctic routes more accessible to shipping, while the same areas may become more attractive for fishing, tourism, resource extraction, and infrastructure development. The growing interest in the Arctic on the part of not only Arctic but also non-Arctic States shows that pressure on the region may increase more rapidly than the preparedness to manage the associated risks effectively.

• It is important to remember that the Arctic does not exist in a legal vacuum. In the legal regulation of Arctic marine areas, an important role is played by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, various instruments of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as well as regional Arctic-specific treaties developed both within and outside the framework of the Arctic Council.

• However, the mere existence of legal instruments does not in itself mean that different types of activity in the Arctic will be coordinated with one another. A more accessible Arctic does not automatically mean a safer or better-governed Arctic. The interests of shipping, fishing, tourism, resource extraction, marine environmental protection, and local communities may overlap and conflict in the same marine areas. It is therefore important to discuss not only where ships or other activities may take place in the future, but also how to manage the associated risks before they become crises.

• It is precisely in this context that marine spatial planning (MSP) may have a role to play. It is a public process for analyzing and allocating where and when human activities in marine areas should take place, with a view to achieving balance as between ecological, economic and social objectives.

• The Arctic is characterized by the seasonality of different activities, difficult ice conditions and the navigational risks that follow from them, limited search-and-rescue capacities, the vulnerability of Arctic ecosystems, and the cumulative adverse impacts of different activities on those ecosystems.

• MSP can serve as one practical risk governance tool for the Arctic that takes these factors into account. It can help bring together scientific forecasts, data on shipping routes and traffic intensity, fishery areas, information on environmentally sensitive areas, infrastructure, and emergency-response capacities.

• MSP is not merely a mapping exercise that allocates different activities. It is an ongoing process of assessing and analyzing risks and the effectiveness of marine governance, in which a range of stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, should participate. Knowledge and experience of the latter are essential for understanding actual conditions of life and activity, seasonal changes, areas of particular importance, and the possible consequences of growing marine activity in the Arctic.

• Many risks in the Arctic have a transboundary dimension. Shipping routes, fish stocks, oil spills, invasive species, search-and-rescue operations, and impacts on ecosystems do not stop at maritime boundaries. For that reason, in the Arctic context, coordination between national MSP processes is important.

• Unfortunately, cooperation in the Arctic is currently constrained by political disagreements. MSP is not a magic solution and cannot resolve all of the Arctic’s political issues. But it can provide a practical, lower-threshold process for data exchange, risk assessment, coordination of national approaches, and the gradual building of trust under conditions of political uncertainty.

• In any event, the question of the Arctic’s future is not only which marine areas will become more open to shipping and other activities but also how to ensure that their use is responsible, predictable, and sustainable.

As it turned out, these points resonated with both scientists and representatives of Indigenous Peoples. After the presentation, several participants approached me and noted that governance decisions concerning particular Arctic marine areas are, unfortunately, often taken without sufficient regard for their views, experience, and knowledge.