Who will own the North Pole?

Mh, the United Nations are an organization, but I suppose the North Pole staying under United Nations supervision would mean "multiple countries", right? Would the question ever settle in this case?

No - read the last line of the settlement details. It has to be explicitly ceded to specific nations.

Personally, I think it should go to Poland... :-)

But my guess is that they'll eventually settle on it being international waters - the northern-most claimed land (an Island of Greenland) is still about 700km from the pole, and there are other countries that will probably want a piece of the Arctic action - Japan for one, maybe China. The US typically hasn't accepted the idea that national claims extend in "segments" to the North Pole.

How will a determination in favor of Santa Claus/ Father Christmas/ Kris Kringle etc be settled? As "No country", or as "Multiple countries"? I can't think of any country with better moral rights to the North Pole than Santa Claus. I for one am hoping for that outcome.

In the Neiman Marcus Christmas Catalogue next year: a gold foiled, Ghirandelli dark chocolate Passport to the North Pole, personally signed and stamped by Santa and delivered by FedEx in sleigh with reindeer. I hope the whole lot doesn't have to go down the chimney...

I'm pulling for Santa as well.

On a related note - who owns Antarctica? I don't mean to start a global warming/no global warming war, but if it turns out as predicted, thats gonna be some prime real estate right there...

It's divided up into chunks like a pie graph. Australia has the biggest share.

@tomrcraver: "But my guess is that they'll eventually settle on it being international waters"
Yes, but that's already the case. If there is no defined settlement date, this "decision" will be difficult to determine.

@tomcraver
from the settlement details "or it determines to have no owner" would also cover "being international waters". it just has to be determined (again) by that specific UN institution.

Caution: there is a 10 year period to make claims after the country ratified the UN convention on the Law of the Sea (which the US has not done yet), which makes this question a potential long term market (in matter of years or even decades).

Even if a country does end up in owning north pole, they'll soon sell it to the Arabs for the money and neutralize the economy depression in their country. Canada in someway has a quite a huge possibility of claiming the north pole they have set out Yukon Territory, North west Passages, Hans island etc with some factual proof to reinforce their argument. Plus, Canada became the first country to extend its boundaries northward to the North Pole, at least on paper, though not internationally recognized

This question seems kind of gamed. The % for "No Country" started off way too low. Just my take.

Does the CLCS have final say? I.e. do their rulings need to be ratified by the UN as a whole, or the Security Council? I looked over their rules and procedures, and did not see anything saying that was the case.

nice question..

ps.. I already own the north pole. I bought it, and the Brooklyn Bridge from New Yorkers, when I was young..
pps.. Anyone want to buy it from me?

Well, let's see: we in the U.S. really has no chance, as we didn't ratify the LotS, and--more importantly--we have no oceanographic features that will allow us to go farther north than the 86th parallel. For much the same reason, Norway is, for all intents and purposes, out of the running too. That leaves Russia, Denmark, and Canada holding the golden tickets. A simple glance at a territorial map shows that Denmark--by way of Greenland--holds land closer to the pole than either of the other two contenders, while Russia claims control over far and away the greatest percentage of the Arctic Ocean. But Russia's 2007 pronouncment that they own the entire Lomonosov Ridge--which extends from their continental shelf all the way under the pole--is looked at with skepticism by most other nations.

My guess: the entire thing will be sliced up into many parts with mostly convoluted, complex borders. The winner will be the oil companies. The loser will be the environment.

Slight correction sqlman, from the wikipedia article:

"The Danish autonomous province of Greenland has the nearest coastline to the North Pole, and Denmark argues that the Lomonosov Ridge is in fact an extension of Greenland. "

That's pretty much what I was saying; Denmark, via Greenland, can make a very credible claim. But Russia does claim that the entirety of the Lomonosov Ridge--all 1000 or so miles of it--is "seismically" connected to them, and therefore they 'own' it.

The irony here is that this is all being fought over rights to the reserves of oil estimated to lie under the Arctic Ocean, of course...but the arguments wouldn't be taking place at all if oil-fueled global warming hadn't melted the Arctic sea ice enough to make exploration/exploitation possible and profitable. :-|

The North pole is actually a geophysical location, like a mathematical point, about which the Earth is rotating. So, I think it should be possible, with modern technology, to go up there, remove whatever ice, etc. is there, before it melts away. Put it in a freezer, preserve it, and claim it, somehow. Take all kinds of photos, etc. for proof, etc. etc. Get a deed. Then you can say you own it, indeed. and you can "prove it".

I think the Ruskies, actually planted a flag on the arctic floor beneath the North pole a few years ago, in a modern day "land grab" kind of thing.