Study on the Conflict of Norms and the Coordination Mechanism of International Law in the Dispute over the Legal Status of Arctic Waterways—A Juridical Logic Based on the Interpretative System of the “Icebound Area Clause”

The dispute over the legal status of Arctic shipping lanes is essentially a structural projection of the conflict of international law norms in the field of polar governance. Based on empirical analyses and normative research methods, this paper reveals three core contradictions in the dispute over Arctic shipping lanes: the normative conflict between Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) “Ice-covered Area Clause” and the principle of freedom of navigation under the framework of the international law of the sea, the functional fragmentation of the regional governance mechanism and the systematic mismatch in the method of legal interpretation. Through the deconstruction of typical cases such as the “Polar Sea” incident, the legal dilemma between the claim of jurisdiction of the coastal state and the determination of the attributes of international shipping lanes is demonstrated, and the systemic tension between the Arctic Council’s “hierarchical and differential structure” and the principle of universal participation in the BBNJ Agreement is pointed out. At the theoretical level, the innovative proposal of “normative conflict matrix” model and “dynamic equity principle”, the construction of “three-layer progressive interpretation framework” and “ice coefficient”, and the “three-layer progressive interpretation framework” and the “three-layer progressive interpretation framework”, were all put forward. It has constructed a coordination mechanism that includes a “three-tier progressive interpretation framework” and a quantitative criterion of “ice coefficient”. At the institutional design level, it is advocated that a judicial path be established for the Arctic Special Chamber, and that a “three-stage coordination mechanism” be set up to achieve the integration of global norms and regional governance. With regard to China’s participation in Arctic governance, it is proposed to strengthen the right of legal interpretation through the “special system for scientific research and navigation”, to promote the revision of the Polar Code by relying on the International Maritime Organisation, and to build a dispute prevention system based on the “Arctic Legal Compliance Index”. The study provides solutions with both theoretical depth and practical value for solving normative conflicts in polar governance.