The Arctic is an ancestral region in which a higher interest should prevail. Here, limits are revealed in all the fragility of the climate and life, and what is at stake is not the interests of States but the collective rights of the human community. But the narrative surrounding the Arctic is no longer one of environmental protection and scientific cooperation. Russian presence, Chinese interest, and economic competition are seen as sufficient justifications for its militarization. It is true that beneath the ice lies a reality of extraordinary strategic and economic value: according to estimates by the US Geological Survey, the Arctic contains approximately 13% of the world\u2019s undiscovered oil resources and 30% of undiscovered natural gas, as well as deposits of rare earth minerals and metals essential for energy transition and 21st-century technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The US base at Pituffik (formerly Thule Air Base) on the northwest coast of Greenland is a central hub for US missile defence and space surveillance, coordinated with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a strategic early warning system that also covers Europe. The melting ice has become a strategic factor: new shipping routes, such as the Northern Sea Route, reduce transport time and costs between Europe and Asia. Russia is investing in port infrastructure and icebreakers, while China has integrated the Arctic route into its \u201cPolar Silk Road\u201d, extending its economic and geopolitical reach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Europe torn between the right of power and the power of right<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Europe made a necessary choice by avoiding escalating confrontation with Trump while defending Denmark\u2019s sovereignty and Greenland\u2019s right to self-determination. However, it is legitimate to question whether the appropriate language and perspective have really been identified. The European Arctic strategy, while invoking sustainability and research, remains heavily inspired by security logic and strategic investments, which risk exacerbating competition and militarization in the Arctic. This may be justified by the challenges of Russia\u2019s and China\u2019s quest for dominance, and now by Trump\u2019s threats, but Europe should have the moral strength to promote exactly the opposite language, transforming power into law, and force into cooperation. The European Union should not accept that the Arctic be absorbed exclusively into the scope of military competition between blocs, abandoning its historical vocation as a normative space of peace and law.<\/p>\n\n\n\t
The Arctic, a moral red line<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The voices of the Arctic\u2019s indigenous peoples must be heard. Their cultures\u2014historically peaceful and deeply connected to nature\u2014remind us that a different relationship with the land is possible. Land law in Greenland does not recognize private ownership in the traditional Western sense: land cannot be bought or sold, but is a collective asset managed by public authorities. This legal framework is rooted both in modern institutional organization and Inuit<\/em> tradition, which views the territory as a shared resource. Individuals may have usage rights, sometimes long-term, but never absolute ownership rights over the land itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International law recognized these values in 2007 in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples<\/a>, which affirms their right to \u201cmaintain and strengthen their distinct spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas\u201d and to participate freely in decisions that affect them in full knowledge of the facts. For these communities, the Arctic represents a moral red line, where human action clearly needs non-negotiable limits, since every intervention has profound consequences for the climate, biological balance and cultural survival of the communities that live there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are seeing rampant acceptance of rejecting not only international law but also the most basic moral constraints that should guide human coexistence. The earth should not be treated as a thing, an object of prey, but as the site of a profound relationship between peoples, ecosystems, and generations. As early as 1795, the philosopher Immanuel Kant warned in his essay Perpetual Peace that every community and every place should be based on the inviolable dignity of each person and on universal responsibility for the common good. This is the \u201ccommon heritage of humanity\u201d principle articulated by diplomat Arvid Pardo in 1970 for international seabed areas and subsequently developed in other contexts, notably by UNESCO in the 1972 World Heritage Convention. At its core is the idea that certain resources and territories cannot be appropriated, but belong to all of humanity. Lawyer Luigi Ferrajoli put forward a similar argument in his proposal for a \u201cConstitution of the Earth\u201d, identifying \u201ccommon resources\u201d governed by supranational regulation to preserve them or guarantee their use by all\u2014an approach already reflected in the law of the sea<\/a> and outer space.<\/p>\n\n\n To understand how international law has concretely addressed these principles for extreme territories, it is useful to refer to the Antarctic Treaty<\/a>, which came into force in 1961 and is one of the most advanced models of collective governance and common heritage. The treaty affirms that it is \u201cin the interest of all mankind that Antarctica should continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and not become the scene or object of international discord\u201d, thus guaranteeing freedom of scientific research and cooperation. The Madrid Protocol<\/a>, which came into force in 1998, reinforced this protection, designating Antarctica as a \u201cnatural reserve, dedicated to peace and science\u201d, requiring that all activities limit negative environmental impacts and prohibiting the exploitation of mineral resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Arctic, on the other hand, remains a \u201cgrey area\u201d. No equivalent protocol exists, sovereignty is fragmented, and natural resources are the subject of intense competition. The current framework of the Arctic Council and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) certainly aims to promote cooperation and environmental protection, but it has not prevented militarization and intensive exploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where a forward-looking European vision could make a decisive difference. An international convention for the Arctic, inspired by the Antarctic model and respectful of local populations, could establish progressive demilitarization, international scientific governance, increased protection of ecosystems and recourse to the International Court of Justice for dispute settlement. This would not only be a political act, it would also be an ethical commitment\u2014a recognition that certain parts of the world exist to remind us of our limits, and that respecting those limits is essential to building peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some might argue that Europe lacks the strength to promote such an initiative, especially when it appears to be hesitating in the face of Trump\u2019s threat, suspended in Davos but which could be reactivated, to immediately impose 10% tariffs on European countries that oppose his \u201cacquisition\u201d of Greenland. This view overlooks the broader global context, particularly that of a marginalized Global South, which shares Europe\u2019s interest in avoiding subservience to new predators. Nor is it true that Europe lacks instruments of pressure with regard to the United States. From a strictly legal point of view, since 2023 the European Union (EU) has had an explicit tool to respond: the Anti-Coercion Instrument<\/a>. It allows the EU to respond to trade threats aimed at influencing sovereign decisions of member States, including by restricting imports or access to public procurement for companies from the coercive country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The United States itself recognizes that Europe remains one of the pillars of the US economy: European institutional investors, pension funds and savers are among the largest foreign holders of US public debt, contributing structurally to the stability of the dollar and the US financial system. This interdependence provides the EU with leverage that could be used to support its foreign policy positions, whether on Ukraine or Greenland. Beyond that, the current European debate on issuing Eurobonds for defence purposes has clear strategic implications: it signals to a recalcitrant US administration that cooperation with the EU is preferable to the emergence of a credible alternative monetary and financial hub that could erode the supremacy of the dollar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In short, European countries have both the contractual power and, above all, the international reputation of a \u201ccommunity of peace and law\u201d to demand respect\u2014even from a US president whose domestic legitimacy is itself increasingly contested. Europe can therefore take a strong diplomatic initiative to confront anyone who threatens the fundamental principles of international law, including the concept of common resources. Scientific cooperation, glacier protection, and shared and regulated resource management are increasingly becoming instruments of global responsibility and conflict prevention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only by recognizing the universal value of the Arctic can we transform the fragility of its ice into hope, and the logic of power into the constraint of global justice.<\/p>\n\n\nAntarctica, an advanced model of collective governance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Arctic remains a \u201cgrey area\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Europe\u2019s anti-coercion weapon<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Greenland](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/USA-Switzerland_Donal-Trump-Davos_@Mandel-Ngan-AFP-540x360.jpg\")
<\/div><\/a>\r\n\t\t\t![\"Marurizio](\"https:\/\/www.justiceinfo.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/Marurizio-Delli-Santi.png\")
MAURIZIO DELLI SANTI<\/strong><\/p>\n