This summer’s scramble for the Arctic is deadly serious. True, Russia raised a few incredulous smiles when it planted a flag directly below the North Pole – an anachronistic act that Russian television appears to have “sexed up” by using shots from the film Titanic in the accompanying footage.

But, by sending men in boats into the region soon after, the US, Canada and Denmark have signalled that the Arctic is no laughing matter. President George W. Bush is expected to discuss the issue with his counterparts from Canada and Mexico at a North Atlantic summit on Tuesday. National pride and, more to the point, vast potential reserves of oil and gas are at stake.

So alluring is this prize that it should be decided by the rule of law, not the buccaneering spirit. And here there are some hopeful signs. Contrary to first impressions, Russia’s escapades are intended to boost, not supplant, the country’s United Nations claim to rights to the sea floor. Similarly, the US is finally moving towards ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that serves as the framework for deciding such issues. The new Democratic Senate majority is scheduling hearings next month.

It is one thing, however, to agree to settle such an issue multilaterally. It is another to ensure that the means to do so are in place.

The responsible UN-hosted body is already struggling with a growing series of territorial claims made by countries as far from the Arctic as Australia and Brazil. But it has neither the staff nor the resources to deal with them comfortably. The respected experts looking at these momentous claims are part-timers operating out of a few rooms – something that physically limits the number of claims they are able to consider at any one time.

While the very best option might be for a new regime to decide on the competing claims for the Arctic, it is more practical to concentrate on building up resources rather than building new institutions. Putting those resources in place is a matter of urgency at a time when countries are jostling to steal a march on others in the queue of petitioners.

Nor can the rights to tap the assets below the ice be the UN’s sole concern. Sadly, the region lacks the overarching environmental protection of the sort from which the Antarctic benefits. Hence the grotesque spectacle of several rich northern countries eagerly waiting for the Arctic ice to melt.

The UN should consider the uses to which the Arctic’s resources are put. That is another way this vital issue must rise above mere landgrabbery.