Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The paper is devoted to the legal regulation of economic activity in the Arctic. It is shown how rulemaking is designed to consolidate the maximum rights to use natural resources. Differentiation of approaches and the use of completely different methods of measuring them are inevitable then. One of them is the interpretation of such a category as sovereignty. It is considered to what extent it meets the constitutive criteria of jurisdiction, the choice in favor of one or another domestic legal system. The relativity of the recognition of conflict-of-laws principles of field availability is noted. The right to develop mineral resources is associated with jurisdictional activities in accordance with acts of national legislation, as well as with the fullness of legal norms — the obvious universalization of jurisdictions. At the same time, quantitative indicators of sovereignty, if possible, can be established only in relation to the degree of influence of interstate organizations. The legal systems of the Arctic countries then minimize the risks of implementing the decisions taken. In this plane, they draw the desired watershed. Qualitative signs of sovereignty are much more important. This is a visible ability to remain a subject of international relations against the background of current crises, but also an explicit delimitation of jurisdictions first for international law enforcement institutions. Subsequently, it affects national civil rights protection systems.
Н. Г. Скачков (Thu,) studied this question.