If an Arctic Ocean treaty is not the solution, what is the alternative?

Many analysts argue that responding effectively to the transformative changes occurring in the Arctic will require the creation of an Arctic Ocean treaty or even a more comprehensive treaty covering the whole Arctic. This article explores this line of thinking critically. In doing so, it addresses three distinct but related questions: 1) Is there a need for an Arctic Ocean framework agreement? 2) Where should we focus our attention along the integration-fragmentation spectrum? 3) Would it help to make arrangements for Arctic governance legally binding? The conclusion is that the case for spending political capital on an effort to negotiate the terms of an Arctic Ocean treaty is weak. But this need not be regarded as a cause for pessimism. A more multidimensional Arctic governance complex is emerging and is likely to continue to develop during the coming years.