Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 11–42 | Cite as

Allocation of Disputable Zones in the Arctic Region

  • Fuad AleskerovEmail author
  • Sergey Shvydun


As a result of the climate change the situation in Arctic area leads to several important consequences. On the one hand, fossil fuels can be exploited much easier than before. On the other hand, their excavation leads to serious potential threats to fishing by changing natural habitats which in turn creates serious damage to the countries’ economies. Another set of problems arises due to the extension of navigable season for shipping routes. Thus, there are already discussions on how should resources be allocated among countries. In Aleskerov and Victorova (An analysis of potential conflict zones in the Arctic Region, HSE Publishing House, Moscow, 2015) a model was presented analyzing preferences of the countries interested in natural resources and revealing potential conflicts among them. We present several areas allocation models based on different preferences over resources among interested countries. As a result, we constructed several allocations where areas are assigned to countries with respect to the distance or the total interest, or according to the procedure which is counterpart of the Adjusted Winner procedure. We consider this work as an attempt to help decision-making authorities in their complex work on adjusting preferences and conducting negotiations in the Arctic zone. We would like to emphasize that these models can be easily extended to larger number of parameters, to the case when some areas for some reasons should be excluded from consideration, to the case with ‘weighted’ preferences with respect to some parameters. And we strongly believe that such models and evaluations based on them can be helpful for the process of corresponding decision making.


Arctic region Oil and gas deposits Fishing resources Arctic shipping Zones of mutual interests Areas allocation 



The paper was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’. The work was conducted by the International Laboratory of Decision Choice and Analysis (DeCAn Lab) of the National Research University Higher School of Economics. We thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments.


  1. Aizerman M, Aleskerov F (1995) Theory of choice. Elsevier, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleskerov F (1985) Procedures of multicriterial choice. In: Preprints of the IFAC/IFORS conference on control science and technology for development, Beijing, China, p 858–869Google Scholar
  3. Aleskerov F, Shvydun S (2017) Allocation of disputable zones in the Arctic region. International Laboratory of Decision Choice and Analysis. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  4. Aleskerov FT, Subochev A (2013) Modeling optimal social choice: matrix-vector representation of various solution concepts based on majority rule. J Glob Optim 56(2):737–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aleskerov F, Victorova E (2015) An analysis of potential conflict zones in the Arctic Region. Working paper WP7/2015/05. Moscow: HSE Publishing House, 20 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Arctic Council (2017) The Arctic Council: A backgrounder. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  7. Arctic Council, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group (2001) Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Conservation. Documentation. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group (CAFF)Google Scholar
  8. Bird KJ, Charpentier RR, Gautier DL, Houseknecht DW, Klett TR, Pitman JK, Moore TE, Schenk CJ, Tennyson ME, Wandrey CJ (2008) Circum-Arctic resource appraisal; estimates of undiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic Circle: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3049, 4 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Brams SJ, Taylor AD (1996) Fair division. From cake-cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brams SJ, Kilgour DM, Klamler C (2017) Maximin envy-free division of indivisible items. Group Decis Negot 26:115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demin SS, Shvydun SV (2017) Example of rational solution in the Barents Sea. In: 2017 IEEE 11th international conference on application of information and communication technologies, vol 2. Institute of Electrical and Electoronics Engineers, pp 251–255Google Scholar
  12. Gautier DL, Bird KJ, Charpentier RR, Grantz A, Houseknecht DW, Klett TR, Moore TE, Pitman JK, Schenk CJ, Schuenemeyer JH, Sørensen K, Tennyson ME, Valin ZC, Wandrey CJ (2009) Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Arctic. Science 324:1175–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Government of Norway (2010) Treaty on maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean signed today. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  14. Humpert M (2012) Arctic Ocean exclusive economic zone. The Arctic Institute. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  15. Hund AJ (2014) Antarctica and the Arctic Circle: a geographic encyclopedia of the Earth’s Polar Regions. ABC-CLIO, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  16. IBRU: Centre for Borders Research - Durham University (2015) Maritime jurisdiction and boundaries in the Arctic region. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  17. Koivurova T, Hossain K (2008) Offshore hydrocarbon. Arctic TRANSFORM. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  18. Kuhn HW (1955) The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Res Log Q 2:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sevunts L (2016) Canada to submit its Arctic continental shelf claim in 2018. Radio Canada International. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  20. Shvydun S (2015) Normative properties of multi-criteria choice procedures and their superpositions: II. Working paper WP7/2015/07 (Part 2). HSE Publishing House, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  21. Shvydun S, Aleskerov F (2017) A mathematical approach to conflict resolution in the Arctic Region. In: 2017 3rd IEEE international conference on cybernetics (CYBCONF), Exeter, 2017, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  22. The CHNL Information Office (2016). NSR—transit statistics. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  23. The European Science Foundation (ESF) (2014) Natural resources in Polar Oceans. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  24. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 10 December 1982. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  25. United Nations (2009) Continental shelf—submission to the Commission by Norway. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  26. United Nations (2014) Continental shelf—submission to the Commission by the Kingdom of Denmark. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  27. United Nations (2017) Submissions, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to article 76, paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  28. World Ocean Review (2016) Key shipping terms in brief. Accessed 6 Nov 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsV.A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control Sciences of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations