Few would have predicted some years ago that the Arctic would become a boom region -- but that's exactly what has happened.

Climate change is causing Arctic ice sheets to melt, with the oceans in the region possibly ice-free during the summer months. This is opening a new Atlantic-Pacific shipping channel and makes the natural resources lying under the seabed more accessible.

Nations have laid conflicting claims to the seabeds. Russia and Norway are disagreeing over a part in the Barents Sea that is poised to hold major oil and gas reserves. The United States and Canada are rowing over a swath of the Beaufort Sea and over the Northwest Passage, which in 2007 for the first time in modern history was free of ice.

Stefan Nicola, United Press International's Correspondent in Berlin, talked to Michael Byers, a politics and law professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and a senior expert on the Arctic, about a region that some observers say has become a potential hot spot for future conflicts.

UPI. Mr. Byers, the five arctic coastal states Canada, the United States, Russia, Denmark and Norway met this week in Ottawa to discuss Arctic diplomacy. The fact that they did this behind closed doors drew anger from NGOs and countries in Scandinavia, who weren't invited. Why the secrecy?

Byers. Well, I think that Iceland, Sweden and Finland should have been invited. They would agree with the so-called Arctic Five countries on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. So it was an unnecessary insult to not invite them.

The same is true for NGOs and indigenous groups. It would build trust on the part of the NGOs, and for the indigenous people, there is no reason to oppose the application of international law because the nations who claim those resources are those who support the indigenous groups financially and who develop the economy and the jobs that will care for them in the future.

Q. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty ratified by all nations with interests in the Arctic except the United States, is the current legal basis for dealing with the newly discovered region. However, it is being criticized by many who say it's not adequate for dealing with the situation there.

A. I don't understand the controversy. This is the constitution of the oceans, an internationally accepted legal framework and it provides a great deal of specificity on the issue of seabed jurisdiction.

Q. The architecture of this convention privileges the coastal states.

A. Yes, but the exact same rules privilege China in the Eastern South China Sea or Germany and Britain in the North Sea. There is a universal perspective and acceptance of these rules. The real challenge in terms of seabed resources involves resolving boundary disputes between the Arctic Ocean countries -- those between Norway and Russia and between the United States and Canada. In both conflicts negotiations are under way but they are challenging.

Q. Why has the United States not ratified the convention?

A. Well, the United States accepts the U.N. convention as customary international law - that means it accepts it is bound by the rules even if it hasn't ratified the treaty. Both the Obama and the Bush administration asked the U.S. Senate to provide advice and consent for ratification.

Q. Why the holdup in the Senate?

A. Well, there have long been some Republican senators who are skeptical of international law and of anything that has the words "United Nations" attached to it.

But the U.S. executive -- and also the U.S. Navy, by the way -- is very supportive of this treaty, so I am confident that the United States will eventually ratify it.

And in the meantime, the United States behaves as if it has ratified, so it's not a problem.

Q. So the current treaty is sufficient in dealing with the situation?

A. Not exactly. There are some areas where there needs to be supplemental lawmaking.

There needs to be a multilateral search-and-rescue treaty for the arctic, and one on high seas fishery for the Arctic. The coastal states only have fishery jurisdiction until 200 nautical miles from shore. We need a regional fisheries organization -- something like the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization -- to manage those resources and to protect those species from over-exploitation.

Q. How about shipping in the Arctic Ocean, which is expected to become ice-free in the summer months?

A. We need additional rules on that definitely. Of course no one contemplated shipping in the center of the Arctic Ocean back in 1982 when the U.N. convention was adopted. The International Maritime Organization some years ago adopted a set of guidelines on Arctic shipping. Those guidelines need to be made into a multilateral treaty.

Q. China and the European Union are pushing into the Arctic. The EU has tried to get permanent member status to the Arctic Council but was denied. Again, why the secrecy?

A. China and the EU should be given permanent observer status at the AC. There is no reason to exclude them. Just like Canada is an observer to the Council of Europe, it's quite normal to allow other countries and organizations to watch what is going on. I would welcome the EU and China into the room so they can see what's going on. This would reduce their suspicion.

Q. China is a country that has major interests in the Arctic.

A. Yes, and these are all about shipping. China has become the dominant export country in the world. We are talking about significant shortcuts -- up to 6,000 miles -- from China to Europe, so yes, they're looking at this with great interest.

At the same time China does not want a Wild West situation in the Arctic. It will worry about piracy, the need for search and rescue, the need for ports of refuge that ships can sail to in the case of emergencies. China will want the Arctic Ocean countries to provide a basic support system for shipping, so it has every incentive to work with the Arctic Ocean countries rather than against them.

Q. What about the Arctic's vast oil and gas resources? China has a growing hunger for these resources and would be happy to tap into the Arctic fields. Is there potential for a conflict?

A. I don't think so. China is very much part of the international economy. They buy oil and gas on the global market and also invest in oil- and gas-producing countries. You don't need sovereignty in order to access oil and gas -- you need money for foreign investment and money to purchase oil and gas on the market. We're not in a 19th-century situation anymore.

Q. But military activities have increased in the region. And there are observers who fear a potential military conflict over resources in the Arctic.

A. That's unrealistic. If you look at the statements by government officials -- in most instances, the military buildup is directed at non-state threats.

When they talk about their Arctic rights they almost always talk about rights that are already within their jurisdiction if they are an arctic ocean country like Russia. Or in the case of China, they are talking about rights in the internationalized areas that will remain in the central Arctic Ocean.

I understand that potential for conflict sells more newspapers but my sense is that countries like Russia and China have enough problems elsewhere and therefore don't want to create problems in the Arctic.