UDC

[327.1(98):141.7](045)

DOI

https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1505-V519

Authors

Maksim L. Marchenkov^1* - Senior Lecturer at the Department of Regional Studies, International Relations and Political Science
Darya K. Kurochkina² - applicant at the Department of Regional Studies, International Relations and Political Science
^{1, 2}Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov; Arkhangelsk, Russia,
¹e-mail: m.marchenkov@narfu.ru*, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3706-2817
²e-mail: kurochkina.d@edu.narfu.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1259-6347

Abstract

As tensions escalate in global politics over international security architecture and global governance, the Arctic has become a region of a recent (since 2020) dramatic transformation of its international political dynamics. Therefore, amid the crisis in international relations theory and practice, it is worth turning to political-philosophical frameworks that can shed new light on the matter of world politics’ problems. Among various philosophical approaches to analyzing international relations, particular attention is drawn to the concept of the Nomos of the Earth, introduced in 1950 by the German philosopher and lawyer Carl Schmitt. This approach offers considerable heuristic value to the analysis of spatial organization (i.e. the principles for establishing legal and political order across territories of varying scales) and thus provides methodological basis for the analysis of the empirics of international relations in the Arctic. Drawing on Schmitt’s work and its critics, the key categories of his philosophy of political and legal space are analyzed: the land–sea dichotomy, land appropriation, “amity lines”, and “large spaces”. To operationalize and interpret these categories more effectively regarding “new” phenomena in world politics, the Nomos concept has been revisited and supplemented with notions of “actors beyond sovereignty”, hierarchy in postmodern international relations, the globalization–regionalization duality, and immaterial “new large spaces”. Using the Arctic’s international relations as a case study, the research overcomes the apparent contradiction between the autonomies of land and sea by their joint construction of the region. It further demonstrates the existence of parallel “large spaces” in the Arctic, highlighting their overlapping territoriality. The conclusion is that the Arctic Nomos is yet transitional, as the region remains a site of struggle for redistribution of resources and the expansion of control over both physical space and immaterial domains.

Keywords

Carl Schmitt, nomos of the earth, philosophy of international relations, nomos of the Arctic, international relations in the Arctic, international legal regime of the Arctic

References

1. Schmitt C. Der Nomos der Erde im Volkerrecht des jus publicum Europaeum. Köln, 1950. 308 p. (Russ ed.: Shmitt K. Nomos Zemli v prave narodov Jus Publicum Europaeum. St. Petersburg, 2008. 670 p.).
2. Herrero M. The Political Discourse of Carl Schmitt: A Mystic of Order. London, 2015. 290 p.
3. Ssorin-Chaikov N. Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018, vol. 47, pp. 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050139
4. Jurkevics A. Hannah Arendt Reads Carl Schmitt’s The Nomos of the Earth: A Dialogue on Law and Geopolitics from the Margins. Eur. J. Polit. Theory, 2017, vol. 16, pp. 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885115572837
5. Kalpokas I. The New Nomos of the Earth and the Channelling of Violence. J. Int. Polit. Theory, 2017, vol. 13, pp. 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088216679024
6. Yarkeev A.V. Katekhon kak teologo-politicheskaya paradigma mirovogo poryadka [The Katechon As a Theologo-Political Paradigm of the World Order]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie, 2024, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 135–159.
7. Burgess J.P. The New Nomos of Europe. Geopolitics, 2009, vol. 14, pp. 135–160.
8. Přibáň J. European Constitutional Imaginaries: A Socio-Legal Perspective. Eur. Law Open, 2025, vol. 4, pp. 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2025.3
9. Orford A. Regional Orders, Geopolitics, and the Future of International Law. Curr. Leg. Probl, 2021, vol. 74, pp. 149–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuab005
10. Sereni C.A. Digital Nomos and the New World Order: Towards a Theological Critique of Silicon Valley. Tapuya: Lat. Am. Sci. Technol. Soc, 2021, vol. 4. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/25729861.2020.1843870 (accessed: 20.04.2026).
11. Antonov B.A. Teoriya «bol’shikh prostranstv» Karla Shmitta primenitel’no k politike Pervogo reykha: ob aktualizatsii ponyatiya «(bol’shoe) prostranstvo» v retrospektive i perspektive [Carl Schmitt’s Theory of “Great Spaces” Applied to the Policy of the First Reich: Actualizing the Concept of (Great) Space in Retrospect and Perspective]. Prolog: zhurnal o prave, 2024, no. 43, pp. 7–16. https://doi.org/10.21639/2313-6715.2024.3.1
12. Lukin Yu.F. Velikiy peredel Arktiki [The Great Redistribution of the Arctic]. Arkhangel’sk, 2010. 400 p.
13. Medvedeva L.M. Activation and Diversification of Arctic Policy: a Historiographical Review. Arctic and Antarctic Research, 2025, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 234-249. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30758/0555-2648-2025-71-2-234-249
14. Postler A. UNCLOS in the Arctic: A Treaty for Warmer Waters. Georgetown Security Studies Review. 24.02.2020. URL: https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2020/02/24/unclos-in-the-arctic-a-treaty-for-warmerwater... (accessed:13.04.2026).
15. Gavrilov V.V., Lyashko G.S. “E’kologicheskoe izmerenie” stat’i 234 Konventsii Organizatsii Ob’’edinyonny’kh Natsiy po morskomu pravu i zakonodatel’stvo Rossii o regulirovanii sudokhodstva v akvatorii Severnogo morskogo puti [“Environmental Dimension” of Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Russian Legislation on the Regulation of Navigation in the Waters of the Northern Sea Route]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2023, no. 4, pp. 18–34. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210018081
16. Todorov A.A. Pravovoy spor mezhdu Rossiey i SSHA o Severnom morskom puti i pokhozhiy vopros o Severozapadnom morskom puti [The Russia-USA Legal Dispute Over the Northern Sea Route and Similar Case of the Northwest Passage]. Arktika i Sever, 2017, no. 29, pp. 74–89. https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2221-2698.2017.29.74
17. Vylegzhanin A., Bunik I., Torkunova E., Kienko E. Navigation in the Northern Sea Route: Interaction of Russian and International Applicable Law. Polar J., 2020, vol. 10, pp. 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2020.1844404
18. Kotlova A.V., Vereina L.V. Aziatskoe izmerenie mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva v Arktike: mezhdunarodnopravovye aspekty [Asian Dimension of International Cooperation in the Arctic: International Legal Aspects]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo, 2025, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1088–1102.
19. Jabour J. Pharand’s Arctic Treaty: Would an Antarctic Treaty-Style Model Work in the Arctic? International Law and Politics of the Arctic Ocean: Essays in Honor of Donat Pharand. Leiden, 2015 pp. 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004284593_005
20. Bartenstein K. The ‘Common Arctic’: Legal Analysis of Arctic & Non-Arctic Political Discourses. Arctic Yearbook 2015. URL: https://arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2015/2015-scholarly-papers/135-the-commonarctic- legal-analysis-of-arctic-non-arctic-political-discourses (accessed: 20.04.2026).
21. Zhilin R.E. Granitsy kontinental’nogo shel’fa v Arktike. Keys SSHA [Boundaries of the Continental Shelf in the Arctic. The Case of the USA]. Rossiyskiy sovet po mezhdunarodnym delam. 31.01.2024. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/blogs/arctic-community/granitsy-kontinentalnogo-shelfa-v-arktike-keys-ssha/ (accessed: 13.04.2026).
22. Gudev P.A. Pretenzii SSHA na kontinental’nyy shel’f: spornaya legitimnost’ [US Claims to the Continental Shelf: Disputed Legitimacy]. Rossiya i Amerika v XXI veke, 2024, no. 11. https://doi.org/10.18254/S207054760033196-2
23. Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. Voennaya bezopasnost’ v Arktike: novye ugrozy dlya Rossii [Military Security in the Arctic: New Threats to Russia]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya XXV. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika, 2024, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 127–152. https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2024-16-3-127-152
24. Qiu X., Pecheritsa V.F., Lo X. Militarizatsiya Arktiki i problemy ukrepleniya bezopasnosti rossiyskogo Severa [Militarisation of the Arctic and Problems of Strengthening the Security of the Russian North]. Rossiysko-kitayskie issledovaniya, 2024, no. 1, pp. 57–68.