3. The emergence of new maritime routes in the Arctic

The emergence of new maritime routes, particularly in the Arctic, offers significant strategic, economic, and geopolitical opportunities, while also raising serious environmental and legal challenges. As Arctic ice continues to recede due to climate change, two key shipping corridors are becoming increasingly accessible during the summer months: the Northeast Passage (NEP) and the Northwest Passage (NWP).

The Northeast Passage (NEP) runs along the northern coast of Russia, from the Bering Strait in the east to the Barents Sea in the west, connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans via the Arctic Ocean. This route allows for a substantially shorter journey between East Asia and northern Europe, particularly between ports such as Shanghai and Rotterdam.

The Northwest Passage (NWP) crosses the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through a series of narrow straits and channels, including Lancaster Sound and the Beaufort Sea. Though more complex to navigate due to its fragmented geography and drifting ice, it offers a direct connection between East Asia and North America or Europe.

The potential benefits of these emerging routes include shorter shipping distances, reduced fuel costs, and greater access to Arctic resources. However, these gains are tempered by harsh environmental conditions, limited infrastructure, and a fragile ecosystem vulnerable to disruption. Moreover, governance of the Arctic remains contested, with diverging legal interpretations and national interests complicating the development of a coordinated approach. This underscores the pressing need for enhanced international cooperation to ensure that Arctic navigation is both sustainable and secure.

#1. Opportunities and benefits

#A. Strategic advantages of the new Arctic routes through the Bering Strait

The progressive opening of Arctic maritime routes offers significant strategic and economic benefits. The Northeast Passage (NEP), which follows the northern Russian coastline through the Bering Strait, provides a substantially shorter maritime corridor between Europe and Asia. This route reduces the maritime distance by approximately 4,000 kilometres, from 19,700 km to 15,100 km on the Shanghai–Rotterdam axis, resulting in a 30% reduction in distance and a 40% gain in transit time, or roughly one week of navigation.

The Northwest Passage (NWP), running through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, also enables connections between Asia, Europe, and North America. Although it is more complex to navigate and involves seven possible routes depending on ice conditions, it can also lead to significant savings. For instance, the London–Tokyo journey is shortened to 15,700 km, compared to 23,300 km via the Panama Canal and 21,200 km via the Suez Canal, a difference of up to 5,500 km, or 25% shorter.

Both routes present several operational advantages. Unlike traditional canals, they are free from constraints related to ship size or draft, enabling the passage of larger vessels without restrictions. These characteristics contribute to considerable reductions in fuel consumption, operating costs, and crew wages, making Arctic routes increasingly attractive for global shipping companies.

#B. Key enabling factors

Several converging factors are facilitating the development of Arctic maritime corridors. Chief among them is the acceleration of polar ice melt driven by climate change. Since the summer of 2018, temperatures in the Arctic Circle have exceeded 30°C, a previously unthinkable figure. Scientific projections suggest that permanent sea ice could disappear entirely within the next two decades, opening navigation windows during the summer months.

In parallel, the declining cost of shipbuilding has enabled the deployment of vessels specially designed for polar conditions. These include reinforced double-hull ships, capable of navigating waters with residual sea ice, thereby ensuring safer and more reliable transits.

The growing energy demand from emerging economies also plays a crucial role. Arctic routes provide more direct access to the region’s untapped hydrocarbon and mineral reserves, enhancing the strategic value of Arctic navigation. Advances in extraction technologies further support this trend, as they make it more economically viable to operate in remote, previously inaccessible areas.

#C. Economic and military potential

The opening of Arctic maritime routes is not only a logistical advantage but also a development of major geostrategic and economic importance. One of its key potentials lies in its ability to link the principal economic hubs of the Triad (North America, Europe, and East Asia) more directly and efficiently.

Additionally, the region facilitates the export of oil from northern Alaska to Europe and Asia, allowing for the diversification of energy markets and the development of new commercial partnerships. The increased navigability of the region also enhances the commercial viability of previously inaccessible resource deposits, enabling more efficient exploitation and broader access to international clients.

Another emerging sector is adventure tourism, which is experiencing growth due to the uniqueness of polar landscapes and the relative novelty of accessible Arctic travel.

From a military perspective, the Arctic has long held strategic value. Both the United States and Russia maintain a network of military installations in the region, some of which date back to the Cold War. As new shipping lanes open, the Arctic is once again becoming a space of military interest, particularly in terms of surveillance, navigation rights, and potential territorial disputes.

#D. Natural resources and changing accessibility

The Arctic is believed to contain vast mineral and energy resources, although accurate estimates remain difficult due to historically limited accessibility. It may hold up to 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas. A notable example is the Barents Sea gas reserves in Russian waters. The Arctic region accounts for approximately 80% of Russia’s gas production, contributes 20% of its exports, and represents 10% of its GDP.

Beyond hydrocarbons, the Arctic is also rich in other strategic minerals, including diamonds, gold, zinc, copper, lead, uranium, silver, and rare earth elements. These resources are critical for high-tech and green technologies. Some commercial mining operations are already underway, such as the resource extraction activities on northern Baffin Island in Canada.

As sea ice continues to recede and technology advances, the accessibility of these resources is increasing, which could transform the Arctic into a new frontier for global resource competition.

#2. Geopolitical challenges

#a) Internal waters and international straits

The legal status of Arctic sea routes is a major source of geopolitical tension. Canada asserts that the Northwest Passage lies within its internal waters, granting it full sovereignty and the right to regulate navigation, particularly for environmental protection. In contrast, the United States and several European nations, including the UK and France, classify it as an international strait, subject to the principle of freedom of navigation. Similarly, Russia demands foreign vessels comply with domestic regulations, including escort requirements and transit fees.

#b) UNCLOS and non-ratification

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) serves as the foundational legal framework for maritime boundaries and navigation rights. While most Arctic states are signatories, the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, which weakens its legal position in Arctic disputes. Nonetheless, it continues to cite UNCLOS provisions to support its interpretations of maritime law, particularly in defending global navigation rights.

#B. Case studies by state

#a) Canada: fragile sovereignty

Canada claims full sovereignty over the Northwest Passage but faces significant limitations in asserting control. Its Arctic military presence is minimal, with only one small garrison and an aging fleet of 18 icebreakers. Surveillance relies partly on part-time Inuit Rangers based in remote communities. This lack of infrastructure and capacity undermines Canada’s ability to effectively enforce its claims and monitor activity across its vast Arctic territory.

#b) United States: economic and strategic interest

The United States views the Northwest Passage as an international strait, advocating for unrestricted access under the principle of freedom of navigation. It sees strategic and economic value in Arctic shipping and resource exploitation. Tensions with Canada have surfaced, most notably in 2005, when US nuclear submarines reportedly transited the passage without Canadian authorisation, challenging Ottawa's sovereignty claims.

#c) Russia: Arctic as a national stronghold

Russia treats the NEP as part of its internal waters and imposes strict controls on foreign vessels, including transit fees and mandatory icebreaker escorts. With 57 icebreakers, including 8 nuclear-powered ships, Russia possesses the world’s most powerful Arctic fleet, enabling year-round operations. It firmly resists any increased US or NATO presence near its Arctic borders. In 2007, Russia symbolically reinforced its territorial claims by planting a national flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole.

#C. Governance: the Arctic Council

Established in 1996, the Arctic Council serves as the primary forum for regional cooperation and governance in the Arctic. It comprises the eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States), six Indigenous organisations representing Arctic peoples, and fourteen observer states including China, India, Japan, the UK, France, and the European Union. Several NGOs, such as the WWF and the Red Cross, also participate.

The Council plays a key role in fostering dialogue, coordinating scientific research, and promoting environmental protection. However, it lacks the authority to implement binding decisions, which limits its effectiveness in addressing sovereignty disputes or military tensions. Nonetheless, it remains the most inclusive and widely recognised institutional framework for Arctic governance.

#D. Multilateral tensions, unresolved claims and new cooperation

The Arctic continues to be marked by legal ambiguity and strategic rivalry, as states interpret international law in conflicting ways and several sovereignty claims remain unresolved. Military deployments and symbolic actions, such as Russia’s 2007 flag-planting beneath the North Pole, reflect intensifying geopolitical competition. The absence of binding enforcement mechanisms within existing governance structures heightens the risk of unilateral action and territorial contestation.

At the same time, new strategic alignments are emerging. Notably, Russia and China have strengthened cooperation through the development of a “Polar Silk Road”, integrating Arctic maritime routes with overland infrastructure such as rail links. China’s growing involvement is evident: in 2018, of the 27 Asia–Europe transits via the NEP, 8 were carried out by the Chinese shipping giant COSCO, signalling its ambitions to become a key Arctic stakeholder.

#3. Major constraints

#A. Key limitations and their evolution

Despite growing interest in Arctic maritime routes, both the NEP and the NWP remain subject to significant physical and economic constraints. The NEP is typically ice-free for only three months per year, limiting its reliability. At present, it is primarily used by icebreaking LNG carriers, as ordinary vessels cannot safely transit without escort. The cost of navigating the NEP remains high due to the need for nuclear-powered icebreakers and the ongoing risk of ice damage.

The NWP presents a different challenge. It is a fragmented route composed of narrow straits and scattered islands, further obstructed by drifting icebergs, making navigation unpredictable. The route’s traffic volume remains extremely limited, comparable to a single day’s traffic through the Suez Canal.

In the short term, reinforced-hull vessels have become more affordable but remain costlier than standard ships. These vessels often require icebreaker support to reassure insurers, alongside specially trained crews to handle the dangers of Arctic navigation. The reinforced ships are also heavier, leading to higher fuel consumption and reduced cargo capacity, which impacts commercial viability.

Arctic tourism faces its own set of challenges. In Nunavut, for example, points of interest are scattered across an immense and remote territory. The lack of essential infrastructure, such as airports, ports, accommodation, and emergency services, significantly limits the sector’s development and raises concerns over visitor safety.

#B. Difficulties in resource exploitation

The Arctic’s vast resource potential is offset by the extreme difficulty of extraction. Harsh environmental conditions, such as strong ocean currents, freezing temperatures, and drifting ice, significantly increase operational risks and costs. A notable example occurred in 2012, when a Russian gas project in the Barents Sea was halted due to these constraints, which doubled investment costs and rendered the project economically unviable.

#C. Environmental impacts

The environmental consequences of increased Arctic activity are profound and often self-reinforcing. Melting sea ice, which previously reflected solar radiation, now exposes darker ocean surfaces that absorb more heat, thereby accelerating further ice loss. Additionally, the deposition of soot from combustion onto snow surfaces increases heat absorption, intensifying the regional warming effect.

Arctic biodiversity is also under threat. Climate change has introduced non-native species such as orcas are increasingly frequent, competing with native marine life like the narwhal. Moreover, poaching has escalated, particularly of polar bears, whose pelts and organs fetch high prices in Asian markets. In Canada, the value of a polar bear carcass rose from 5,000 CAD in 2008 to 25,000 CAD in 2018.

#4. Summary table

Dimension Opportunities Constraints
Geostrategic - Shorter routes between Asia, Europe, and North America (NEP and NWP)
- Enhanced global connectivity
- Diversification of energy corridors		 - Legal disputes over sovereignty (e.g., NWP)
- Overlapping claims and UNCLOS non-ratification
Economic - Lower fuel and labour costs
- Access to untapped hydrocarbon and mineral resources
- Growth of adventure tourism		 - High operational costs due to ice conditions
- Expensive ice-class ships
- Infrastructure gaps
Military/security - Strategic military bases (US, Russia)
- Control over chokepoints
- Polar Silk Road cooperation (e.g. China–Russia)		 - Rising militarisation
- Potential for confrontation over freedom of navigation
Environmental - Arctic Council cooperation on climate issues
- Scientific monitoring via new access		 - Accelerated ice melt from black carbon
- Biodiversity disruption and poaching
- Risk of oil spills and nuclear accidents
Governance/legal - Arctic Council as a multilateral platform
- Observer participation (e.g. China, India, EU)		 - No binding enforcement mechanism
- US non-ratification of UNCLOS
- Conflicting national policies
Technical/logistical - Advances in ship design (e.g., reinforced hulls)
- Icebreaker support fleets
- Seasonal window expanding		 - Navigation still limited to 2–3 months/year
- Icebergs, unpredictable conditions
- Low traffic vs Suez or Panama