Northern Sea Route: legality of regulations in the light of the KPM

Fundacja Dobre Państwo • January 13, 2026 • 🇵🇱 Polski

Introduction

The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is a strategic transport corridor whose importance grows as glaciers melt. This article analyzes the compliance of Russian regulations with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), particularly regarding Article 234. Readers will learn how the lex specialis for ice-covered areas affects freedom of navigation and how Russian reforms and international sanctions shape the current legal regime in the Arctic.

Article 234 UNCLOS: The Primacy of Environmental Protection in Ice-Covered Waters

Article 234 of UNCLOS grants coastal states special powers to adopt non-discriminatory laws within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The condition is the presence of ice for most of the year and the need to protect a fragile ecosystem. Russian reforms after 2012 centralized NSR management, introducing an authorization system and fees for actual services, such as pilotage and icebreaker assistance.

Standards from the International Maritime Organization (IMO), including the Polar Code (2017), serve as an important reference point. While Article 234 does not subordinate state competence to IMO norms, in practice, they set the threshold for regulatory rationality. A state must demonstrate that its actions are based on the best scientific evidence and duly consider the interests of navigation.

The US, Canada, and China: The Dispute Over Arctic Water Status

The status of Arctic routes is the subject of a doctrinal dispute. Canada treats its waters as internal, the US defends their status as international straits, and China promotes the idea of a Polar Silk Road. Russia invokes a historical argument, treating the NSR as a national corridor. The requirement for prior consent to enter the area is particularly controversial, as it conflicts with the freedom of navigation in the EEZ.

The dispute over functional sovereignty concerns whether Article 234 is merely a protective exception or a tool for political control. International sanctions after 2022 have deepened Russia's isolation, leading to legal autarky and a lack of transparent regulatory audits. Consequently, the Russian regime is drifting toward unilateral management, undermining its international legitimacy.

Risk Function as the Foundation of the Operational Model

Assessing the legality of protective measures requires a proportionality test. The proposed operational model is based on a risk function that considers six dimensions: ice conditions, bathymetry, connectivity, intervention capacity, ship profile, and micro-threat empirics. Such a matrix allows for assessing whether, for example, icebreaker assistance is essential for a given vessel at a specific time and region.

A key element of the system is the insurance market, which translates risk into operational costs. For the system to be credible, the state should publish a transparent annual report and apply an equivalence algorithm that recognizes foreign standards and icebreaking services. In the face of climate change and the receding ice cover, the scope of Article 234 will contract, forcing a transformation of the regime toward cooperative solutions.

The Arctic: A Laboratory for Global Co-responsibility

The Northern Sea Route is a litmus test for our ability to co-govern the planet in an era of climate crisis. The region's future depends on whether the logic of cooperative rationality or imperial rivalry prevails. Article 234 of UNCLOS is not a privilege but a test of character for civilization: a test of whether we can create laws that protect the biosphere without paralyzing global exchange and the freedom of the seas.

📄 Full analysis available in PDF

Summary

This article addresses the legality of Russian regulations regulating navigation on the Northern Sea Route in the context of international maritime law. The author focuses on the interpretation of Article 234 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (CLSS), which grants coastal states special rights in ice-covered areas. The analysis encompasses the relationship between state sovereignty and freedom of navigation, taking into account the requirements of the Polar Code and IMO standards such as the SOLAS and MARPOL conventions. The text sheds light on the tensions between economic exploitation and the protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem, introducing the concept of regulatory proportionality. The perspectives of global players are also presented, including the concept of the Polar Silk Road and the positions of the United States and Canada regarding Arctic transport routes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Russia legally restrict shipping on the Northern Sea Route?

Yes, under Article 234 of the KPM, provided that the provisions are non-discriminatory and serve to protect the sensitive Arctic ecosystem from pollution in ice-covered areas.

What are the main controversies surrounding Russian regulation of the Arctic?

The main issues that remain controversial are the requirements for obtaining prior consent to enter the waters and the restrictions on the use of icebreakers under a foreign flag.

How do the US and Canada approach sea routes in the Arctic differ?

Canada considers the Northwest Passage to be its internal waters, while the US treats it as an international strait with the right of free transit.

What does the requirement to give due consideration to navigation in the law of the sea mean?

This is an obligation for the coastal state to justify restrictions with sound risk models and avoid excessive barriers to international shipping traffic.

How does the Polar Code affect navigation safety?

The Code systematizes technical and qualification requirements for crews, introducing risk gradations depending on the prevailing temperature and ice conditions.