диссертация (1169188), страница 10
Текст из файла (страница 10)
Furthermore, such an existing disagreement in the international legalpositions pre-ordains that the result of such determination of the boundaries of the37Rothwell D.R., Joyner C.C. The Polar Oceans and the Law of the Sea. / The Law of the Sea and Polar MaritimeDelimitation and Jurisdiction. Ed. by A.O. Elferink and D.R.
Rothwell. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. The Hague/New York/ London. 2001. P. 1.44Arctic shelf cannot be just.38 Conversely, the regional approach, an agreement ofall five Arctic coastal states, can produce a fair result here. The Russian Ministerof Foreign Affairs has pointed out that “strengthening of the regional level ofmanagement serves as a kind of safety net where global mechanisms fail”.39The need for such a bilateral and regional approach to defining the status ofthe Arctic has long been recognized. In characterizing “the legal position of theNorthern Polar areas”, V.L. Lakhtin found no objection on the part of non-Arctic(“non-Polar”) states against the sovereignty of the respective Arctic state to the“adjacent” land and islands, including those not yet discovered. The evident lack,with respect to such lands and islands, of “sufficient practical interest with nonPolar states, coupled with a rather great practical interest” with the Arctic states,“has created the situation, whose onset we can witness now.
The land and islandsof the Arctic Ocean have in fact fallen under the sovereignty of the respectiveadjacent Polar states, despite there being no effective occupation on their part dueto its physical impossibility.” 40 For decades, there have been no objections,including in the Anglo-American international law doctrines, against V.L.Lakhtin’s proposed boundaries of the “regions towards which [the coastal Arcticstates’ interests] gravitate” or their “Polar sectors” in the Arctic.
Thus, aNorwegian international lawyer. G. Smedal, in analysing Professor V.L. Lakhtin’swork, not only largely adheres to the propositions cited above, but also offersfurther proof of his own, derived primarily from the practice of Canada. The writesthat Canada’s position is that Canada has jurisdiction over all Canadianarchipelago between her Northern coast and the North Pole.”41 An English scholarof law H. Steele who examined the extrapolation further north of the Canadian38For more details, see: Predlozheniya k Dorozhnoi karte razvitiya mezhdunarodno-pravovykh osnovsotrudnichestva Rossii v Arktike [Proposals to the Roadmap of Development of the International Legal Bases forRussia’s Cooperation in the Arctic] / Ed.
by I.S. Ivanov. М., 2013. P. 4-6.39At http://www.mgimo.ru/news/guests/index.phtml.40Lakhtin V.L. Prava na severnye polyarnye prostranstva [Title to the Northern Polar Territories]. Izdanie LitizdataNarodnogo Komissariata po Inostrannym Delam. М. 1928. P. 8-17. The author also formulated the same thoughtthus: “irrespective of nationality, these lands now belong to Polar States, to whose interests these islands gravitate,notwithstanding their effective occupation”.
Ibid., P. 29.41Smedal G. Acquisition of Sovereignty over Polar Areas. Oslo. Translated from Norwegian. 1931. P. 8.45authorities’ control, refers to the peaceful and admiring occupation by Canada ofits Arctic and sub-Arctic areas, also making no legal distinction between ice-boundland and ice-covered sea areas.42It is telling, however, that the Anglo-American doctrine on the status of theArctic, including the works of American lawyers, take no notice of ProfessorLakhtin’s statement favouring primarily U.S.
national interests in the Arctic,strange as it may seem. Thus, according to V.L. Lakhtin, “the most indisputableare the boundaries of the American North Polar sector… set forth by the Treatiesof 1825 and 1867”.43 This is all the more surprising given that those internationalconventions are currently in effect, they have retained their legal relevance,especially in the present-day context of the qualifications of the legal status of theArctic continental shelf, its delimitation in 1990 between the USSR and the USalong the line envisaged in the 1867 Treaty.The interpretation of these Treaties, given the foregoing, is relevant topractice. Article III of the 1825 Saint-Petersburg Convention with EnglandConcerning the Limits of Their Respective Possessions on the Northwest Coast ofAmerica and the Navigation of the Pacific Ocean provides, “The line ofdemarcation between the Possessions of the High Contracting Parties… shall bedrawn in the following manner…” (a detailed description of that line ofdemarcation in the Southern part follows).
As to the northern part, the Conventiondescribes that demarcation line as running along the meridian line towards theNorth Pole and, “finally, from the said point of intersection, the said Meridian Lineof the 141st Degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form thelimit between the Russian and British Possessions…” That is, the 1825 Conventionfor the first time introduced, at treaty level, the notion of “Polar possessions” ofthe Russian Empire and Great Britain in the Arctic; the same treaty was the first toprovide for the principle of delimitation of the sovereign powers of twoneighbouring states along the sectoral (meridian) line running towards the North42Steele H. Policing the Arctic.
Jarrolds Publishers. London. 1936. P. 9.43Lakhtin V.L. Op. cit. P. 38.46Pole. Here, one should note that in delimiting the respective sovereign possessionsof Russia and England, it was the will of the contracting parties to delimit both theland and the adjacent waters including those covered by ice.
The contracting statessaw the meridian demarcation line going to the North Pole as convenient,simplifying the task of having to run a long line to delimit the huge expanses of thetwo states’ Polar possessions, as subsequently noted by the foreign scholar. That –simplicity – was the benefit of the “sectoral principle” of delimitation betweenneighbouring states of their jurisdiction in the Arctic that G.
Smedal referred to.The second treaty delimiting the jurisdictions between the Arctic coastalstates along the meridian ascending to the North Pole is the Russian-AmericanTreaty of 1867. Its full title reads “Treaty concerning the Cession of the RussianPossessions in North America by his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russia’s to theUnited States of America made in Washington on March 18(30), 1867”.
Accordingto that Treaty, a boundary was drawn, and all lands east of it were ceded by Russiato the US, while those to the west remained under Russia’s sovereignty. Within themeaning of the 1867 Treaty, Russia assigned to the US “all the rights, franchises,and privileges” existing with respect to its “territory or dominion, andappurtenances thereto”.
“The cession of territory and dominion herein made ishereby declared to be free and unencumbered by any reservations…and thecession… conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now belonging toRussia in the said territory or dominion, and appurtenances thereto” (Art. VI). Art.I contains a reference to the meridian (sectoral) line set forth by the RussianEnglish Convention of 1825: “the same [territory] being contained within thegeographical limits herein set forth, to wit: The eastern limit is the line ofdemarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, asestablished by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28 16, 1825…” The 1867 Treaty provides that the said boundary ran towards theNorth Pole through the “intersection by the meridian which passes midwaybetween the islands of Krusenstern, or Ignalook, and the island of Ratmanoff, orNoonarbook, and proceeds due north, without limitation, into the same Frozen47ocean” (“et remonte еn ligne directе, sans limitation, vers le Nord jusqu’a cequ’elle se perde dans la mer Glaciale”) (Art.
I)44.Thus, in both the 1825 Convention and the 1867 Treaty, the sectoral lineslaid down initially served precisely for the interstate delimitation between Arcticcountries of their rights to the “Polar possessions”. The first state to make alegally accurate stipulation at the legislative level concerning the sectoral limits ofits rights in the Arctic was Canada. The international legal implications of theCanadian Arctic legislation were appreciated not by the Russian, but by foreignscholars. Thus, Professor F. de Hartingh noted, “Le secteur canadien avait triomphedes 1923 (the Canadian sector had a triumphal victory in 1923)”45 Legal claims toCanada’s Arctic sector, however, were made even earlier – as early as 1907, whena Canadian senator Poirier argued that the sectoral principle of delimitationbetween the Arctic states of their Polar possessions in the Arctic would allow themto avoid “complications” and “conflict”, since each state littoral to the ArcticOcean would “expand its possessions (ses possessions) up to the North Pole(jusqu’au pole nord).”46 Even before that, the maps issued by the Canadian Ministryshowed the Arctic sector frontiers running from the Canadian extremities (in the westand east) of the country’s north coast along the meridians of 60 and 141 degreeswestern longitude until they intersected in the North Pole.47 To formalize thoserights, the Government proceeded to make a number of statements.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
