*In 2015 Hilcorp started working on expeditions to be made in Alaska.Not long before the company started working in Alaska in April 2012, it began to pile up violations. By October 2015, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), had documented 25 instances in which Hilcorp violated its regulations. “The disregard for regulatory compliance is endemic to Hilcorp’s approach to its Alaska operations and virtually assured the occurrence of this violation,” the chair of the commission wrote to the company in November 2015. “Hilcorp’s conduct is inexcusable.”*Shell,an energy and petrochemicals company, is to pay 1.1 million dollars as a fine for air quality violations in the Arctic. The violations resolved by Shell’s settlement include excessive hourly nitrogen-oxide emissions on the drillships and support vessels and lapses in use of emissions-cleansing equipment.*A lawsuit has been filed against the Norwegian government over a decision to open the Barents Sea for oil exploration which violates the country’s constitution and threatens the Paris climate agreement. Contrary to being a green role model due to many of its reforms and implementations towards better environment, it will now have to stand charges for violating Article 112 of the country’s constitution. Truls Gulowsen, the director of Greenpeace Norway, said: “Signing an international climate agreement while throwing open the door to Arctic oil drilling is a dangerous act of hypocrisy. By allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic, Norway risks undermining global efforts to address climate change.”These, among other violations is a result of a constant fight to prove military might and to get hands on the resources without paying heed to the adverse environmental ramifications.Current Legal Framework:The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) was a legal stand that came to be formed between 1973 and 1982, during its third UN conference.The UNCLOS defines the permissibility of the countries and establishing their rights with respect to the use of their use of the world’s oceans. UNCLOS came into force in 1994.the rules were set as follows:The internal waters,i.e the waterways on the inward side of the baseline, of the nation is open to be used by the nation. The nation is free to set laws, regulate use and use resources of that area.The Territorial waters , i.e 22 kilometers off the coast,is under the jurisdiction of the nation and can be treated in the way the internal waters are treated.Contiguous zone is the zone after the territorial water zone, beyond 22 kilometers where the nation has no right to enforce laws in four areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution.However the treaty only applies to the states that have agreed to be bound by it and that doesn’t include the US.The conundrum is that some laws do not relate to the arctic specifically but exists as international laws. However they do also apply to the arctic, trying to ratify the conditions of the arctic.For example, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).More specific regional agreements also exist such as one on cooperative search and rescue. And some agreements, focus on specific needs of certain parts of the Arctic, like the Barents Sea fisheries agreement.governments , NGOs and industry bodies can influence the laws and its of little difference whether a Law is specific to Arctic or an international law if its implemented effectively.There are also indirect opportunities for bodies, seemingly unconnected with the Arctic to regulate activities there. For example, the EU is one of the largest importers of fish caught in or near Arctic waters. It could then shape fishing efforts in the Arctic by restricting imports of particular fish, or of fish caught using particular methods. Its market share may be large enough to have a regulating effect on Arctic fisheries.Even with the existence of laws, there can be a lot of improvements.With the key idea of bringing a change in the Arctic, a lot of reforms can be used effectively and have a propitious effect globally too.There is a multitude of ways in which states, industry, NGOs and individuals can influence the law in the Arctic, particularly through political channels.