диссертация (1169188), страница 32
Текст из файла (страница 32)
None of Russia’s projectedstraight baselines in the Arctic proposed here reaches that length.16.The interpretations of prescriptions on straight baselines identifiedhere and found in the effective universal treaties are applicable to the Arctic coastof the Russian Federation. There are numerous portions of Russia’s coastline thatare “indented” and “cut into”; there are also parts of Russia’s coastline that have “afringe of islands in the immediate vicinity”; Russia should also take account of theprovisions on “economic interests peculiar” to the regions around the coasts ofwhich it is planning to draw straight baselines, as well as historic title.14217.The analysis of the differences the U.S.
and Canada have with respectto Canada’s drawing of straight baselines in the Arctic set out here should also betaken into account in terms of its substance. That includes the traditional U.S.stance of objecting to any straight baselines drawn by any state. The experience ofdifferences on that matter between the U.S. and Canada shows that Russia wouldbe able to overcome that complication by meticulously following generalinternational law.
There is already some support of Arctic straight baselines inAnglo-American doctrines.143CHAPTER 3. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL POSITIONS OF RUSSIA’SNEIGHBOURING ARCTIC STATES ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF INTHE ARCTIC (ACCORDING TO FOREIGN LEGAL SOURCES)§ 1. General characteristic of the matterOne of the most influential world specialists on the Law of the Sea, theDeputy Director at the Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, describes thelegal regime of the Arctic shelf, stressing the applicability of the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) to the Arctic Region.Firstly, he correctly notes:“The extent of the continental shelf is defined in the LOS Convention, the1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and customary international law.”151The author does not clarify the content of the customary international lawapplicable in the Arctic.
He further notes:“Most states are at present Parties to the LOS Convention. This concerns allstates with a territorial claim in Antarctica and all coastal states in the Arctic, withthe exception of the United States.”152It is very important that the author notes the advantages for the US of notbeing a Party to the UNCLOS:“The United States is in a different position. Not being a Party to the LOSConvention, it does not have the right to make a submission to the CLCS. Thesubstantive rules applicable to the determination of the outer limit the continentalshelf of the United States may be those contained in the LOS Convention. TheUnited States is a party to the Convention on the Continental Shelf, but it is likelythat the provisions on the outer limit of the shelf contained in its article 1 havebeen modified by customary international law.
The United States has taken the151Elferink A G.O. The outer limit of the Continental Shelf in the Polar Regions. /The Law of the Sea and the PolarRegions. Interactions between Global and Regional Regimes. Ed. by E. J. Molenaar, A.G.O. Elferink and D.R.Rothwell. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. P. 62.152Ibid.144position that it has exercised and shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over itscontinental shelf in accordance with and to the full extent permitted byinternational law.”153We should be reminded that according to Article 1 of the Convention on theContinental Shelf, the U.S.
shelf north of Alaska is “the seabed and subsoil of thesubmarine areas adjacent to the coast” of the U.S., “but outside the area of theterritorial sea… to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of theexploitation of the natural resources of the said areas.” That is, to the North Pole oreven further.In this context, Prof. Elferink correctly observes, “This state of affairsimplies that the United States could establish the outer limits of it continental shelfwithout going through the process involving the CLCS. This might be seen to bean advantage.”154But is it an advantage for Russia, Canada, Denmark, and Norway, who areparties to the UNCLOS, in contrast to the U.S.? The author does not consider thisquestion.
While paying much attention to Art. 76 and the role of the Commissionon the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), Prof. Elferink does not dwell uponthe key questions:-Is it possible under international law to have equal legal opportunitiesfor exploiting natural resources of the arctic shelf for the U.S., on the one band,and for Russia, Canada, Denmark, and Norway, on the other?-Can all these five Arctic states delimit the arctic shelf amongthemselves without applying to the CLCS, given that the U.S. does not have legalstanding in this Commission?As it was shown in Chapter 1 above, until 1997, there were all reasons tolegally qualify – by way of bilateral agreements between Russia and Canada,Russia and Denmark, and Russia and Norway – the entire floor of the ArcticOcean as their Arctic continental shelf and thereby, by virtue of such bilateral153Ibid., P.
63.154Ibid.145agreements, delimit them – using the sectoral principle, the equidistance principleor by combining the two. The Arctic shelf of the U.S. already has prima faciesectoral boundaries drawn along the meridians as set forth by the 1825 Treaty(between Russia and the UK) and the 1867 Treaty (between Russia and the U.S.),discussed above, and joining at the North Geographic Pole. These boundaries,however, can also be altered, but only subject to the consent of the state parties tothe above treaties (that is, currently, Russia, the U.S., and Canada).That opportunity, as it has been noted, was ruled out by the publicationduring President B.N.
Yeltsin’s term, of the notorious Resolution No. 717 of theGovernment of the Russian Federation dated 16 July 1997, and, in furtherancethereof, by applying to the CLCS for another procedure – “delineation” of theRussian Arctic shelf from the Area – the “common heritage of mankind.”155In such circumstances, the key question that has opened up for debate is thequestion of specifying the status of the areas of the Arctic Ocean floor north of the200-mile distance from the baselines.The economic price of this issue, even if one confines it solely to evaluatingthe hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic, is high.156 And that price is all the higher if155Resolution of the Government of Russia “On the Procedure for Approving Lists of Geographical Coordinates ofthe Points Defining the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation” No. 717 dated 16 June1997, provided: “2.
The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Defense of theRussian Federation shall, upon the approval of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, submit to theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation proposals on the lists of geographic coordinates of the pointsdefining the lines of the outer limits of the continental shelf of the Russian Federation fixed in accordance with theUN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, specifying the principal source geodetic data... 3. The Ministry ofForeign Affairs of the Russian Federation shall submit the proposals on the lists of coordinates and the materialssupporting the same referred to in clause 2 hereof, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelfestablished in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, to obtain recommendations onthe issues of defining the outer limits of the continental shelf of the Russian Federation.”156According to foreign experts, the Arctic is the point of concentration of the greatest hydrocarbon reserves in theentire World Ocean - around 180 billion metric tons.
The majority – 66 billion metric tons (37%) – is found in theAsian part of the Arctic; 54 billion metric tons (30%) of hydrocarbons, in the areas between the North Pole andNorth America. Apart from hydrocarbon resources (not only oil and gas, but also resources such as hydrates), theArctic shelf is also rich with deposits of hard minerals, including precious metals. The Oceans: Key Issues in MarineAffairs/Ed. By H.D.
Smith. Dordrecht/Boston/London. 2004. P. 283-284. Russian expert assessments of thereserves of oil and gas in the maritime areas adjacent to the Arctic states’ coast, are as follows: Russia: 20-46 bln.tons of oil and 0.5-1.5 tn m3 of gas; Norway, respectively, 5-8.5 bln. tons and 3-4 tn m3; Canada: 3.5-9.5 bln. tonsand 6.5-18.5 tn m3; the U.S. (north of Alaska): 1-3 bln. tons and 1-2 tn m3. Barsegov Yu.G., Mogilevkin I.M. et al.Arktika: interesy Rossii i mezhdunarodnye usloviya ikh realizatsii [The Arctic: Russia’s Interests and theInternational Conditions for Their Realisation].
Мoscow: Nauka, 2002. P. 112. Some publications that cannotqualify as scholarly legal studies, set out different figures for the reserves (e.g., Severnaya entsiklopediya [NorthernEncyclopaedia]).146one takes into account the considerations of defense, as well as the prospects of aconsiderable re-evaluation of economic factors in the context of the thawing of icein the region, in particular, the accessibility of bioresources of the northern seas, apossible re-routeing of some of the trans-ocean cargo flows from Europe to Asiafrom the Suez Canal to the Northeast Passage (along Russia’s Arctic coast).International legal doctrines have suggested different solutions to this keyissue of the status of the Arctic Ocean floor.The essence of the first doctrinal position is this: the Arctic should be treatedin the same way as the Indian or other unfreezing oceans; consequently, the Arctic,including its high-latitude regions, would become a subject regulated by theUNCLOS.
By virtue of its participation in that Convention, Russia would then beobliged to draw a boundary in the Arctic between its continental shelf and the“common heritage of mankind” under Art. 76 of the UNCLOS. That position is anew approach to assessing the status of the Arctic, supporting the abovementioned1997 Resolution of the Government, which prompted the drafting and filing withthe UN of Russia’s submission on the outer limits of its continental shelf. Theinternational law applicable to the Arctic is here narrowed down, confined to one ofthe UNCLOS articles – Art. 76.157 It has been asserted at the level of theory that forRussia to exercise its rights to the Arctic shelf, it has to submit data on the boundariesof the Russian Arctic continental shelf to the CLCS.158 According to this newapproach, part of the seabed in the country’s Arctic sector (area A) is no longerconsidered to be Russia’s continental shelf since 2001.
In case of the CLCS’saffirmative recommendation on Russia’s 2001 submission, the mineral resources of157As noted by G.G. Shinkaretskaya (of the Institute of State and Law with the Russian Academy of Sciences), fromamong Russian scholars, that new position was first formulated by A.L. Kolodkin: “The first Russian scholar who…asserted that the rules… of international law are fully applicable to the maritime areas of the Soviet Arctic, was A.L.Kolodkin” (Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 1. 2009.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
