диссертация (1169188), страница 39
Текст из файла (страница 39)
1 of the 1958 Convention on the ContinentalShelf). In accordance with the UNCLOS (and Denmark became party to it only on16 December 2004) (subsequently that decision was also confirmed by theParliaments of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), such sovereign rights areexercised: а) 200 nm from the baselines used to measure the breadth of theterritorial sea; or up to the outer submerged edge of the continent, and thatboundary shall be set by the coastal state beyond the 200-mile limit based onconventional geological and other criteria (Art. 76); b) to the lines delimiting shelfareas with neighbouring states (with opposite or adjacent coasts) under agreementswith them (Art. 83).On 15 December 2014, the Kingdom of Denmark filed a submission withthe CLCS.
Denmark qualified its document as a “partial submission” infurtherance of its obligations under Art. 76(8) and Art. 4 of Annex II to the194Koivurova T. and Holiencin F. Demilitation and Neutralisation of Svalbard: how has the Svalbard regime beenable to meet the changing security realities during almost 100 years of existence?/ Polar Record. P. 1-12. CambridgeUniversity Press. 2017.173UNCLOS. The document concerns continental shelf north of Greenland, whichconstitutes Denmark’s continental shelf from the perspective of international law.There is no such term as “partial submission” in the UNCLOS; nor is itfound in any of the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, which,together, make the multilateral treaty basis of the legal regime of maritime areasalong with the UNCLOS.
At the same time, the practice of performance ofUNCLOS Art. 76 has gone along the way of submission of “partial” data on thepositions of coastal states regarding its continental shelf to the CLCS in caseswhere the state reserved the right to submit new data in the future – on wider shelf.The submission term for such new data, at that, is no longer limited to 10 years setfor the initial submission by the respective state starting from the date theUNCLOS entered into force for it (that limitation of the term for submitting data tothe Commission is set forth by Art. 4 of Annex II to the UNCLOS).According to its submission to the Commission, Denmark, a state withterritory of a little over 43 thousand sq.km, claims to exercise sovereign rights withrespect to a plot of over 890 thousand sq.km – beyond its 200-mile EEZ, that is, anarea twenty times the territory of Denmark itself, as well as considerablyexceeding the area of its Arctic sector. That shelf area also includes the NorthPole.195 This is how Denmark’s claims to such vast expanses were commented onby Professor of the University of British Columbia (Canada), M.
Byers: “The firstdelimitation method available to Canada and Denmark is a meridian-based (i.e.“sector”) line… Second, an equidistance line could also be used beyond 200nautical miles, although determining base points can become more technicallydifficult the further one moves offshore… Regardless of which method is adopted,Canada and Denmark will wish to provide for the joint management of anyhydrocarbon and mineral deposits that straddle the boundary.” 196 Denmark’sMinister of Foreign Affairs M.
Lidegaard noted that that step was “an attempt to195UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. A Commentary. Ed.-in-Chief. M. H. Nordquist. Vol. II. MartinusNijhoff Publishers. Dordrecht. Boston. London. 1993. P. 883.196M. Byers. International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press. 2013.
P. 121-122.174honestly and accurately present geological data.” 197 According to the officialstatement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark,submission of the data relating to our continental shelf to the north of Greenland isa historical and important step for the Kingdom of Denmark. The purpose of thislarge-scale project is the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf ofthe Kingdom of Denmark”198Danish experts name two principal reasons for Denmark’s submission withrespect to such an extensive area in the Arctic Ocean.
The first has to do withinternal politics. In recent years, there have been secessionist sentiments in theDanish island of Greenland. However, Greenland (populated by around 70,000people) has neither political, nor economic, nor military capabilities for protectingits interests to the shelf north of the island. This is why Copenhagen’s submissionwith respect to the continental shelf north of Greenland will, according to theDanes, allow the authorities and inhabitants of the island to see the benefits of aunion with Denmark and alleviate the “secessionist” sentiment in the autonomy.199The second reason is allegedly related to the “aggressive” Arctic policy of Canada:in 2013, Canada refused to perform an earlier agreement with Denmark (on notincluding into the submission the remote areas of the Arctic Ocean which maypotentially fall within Denmark’s legal claims).
However, Canada’s PrimeMinister Stephen Harper gave a “green light” to including those remote areas intoCanada’s pending submission to the CLCS.200 Denmark’s ambitious submission tothe CLCS in 2014 under Art. 76 of the UNCLOS, as already noted, was197According to Senior Geophysicist of the Geological Service of Denmark Christian Marcussen, the LomonosovRidge is the natural continuation of Greenland’s shelf, while the North Pole is “a tiny abstract spot [that] lies in thearea.” URL: http://rt.com/news/214615-denmark-arctic-shelf-claim/.198URL: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/15/a-new-cold-war-denmark-gets-aggressive-stakes-huge-claim-inrace-for-the-arctic/#__federated=1 See also Byers M.
International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press.2013. P. 29-32.199MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheKingdomofDenmark.http://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=71574E42-6115-4D16-9C8A-4C056F8603F3.200URL:Denmark’s Application for the North Pole and the Militarization of the Arctic (Federal Media Monitoring:December 15-20, 2014). URL: http://www.arctic-info.com/FederalMonitoringMedia/22-12-2014/denmark-sapplication-for-the-north-pole-and-the-militarization-of-the-arctic--federal-media-monitoring--december-15-20-2014.175“prompted” by the submission to that CLCS in 2001 by the Russian Federation.201Before 2001, Denmark did not advocate applying the provisions of Art. 76 of theUNCLOS (on the delineation by the coastal state of its shelf from the “commonheritage of mankind” according to geological and distance criteria) to the areasnorth of Greenland; consequently, it did not speak in favour of addressing theCLCS for such delineation, and it did not participate in the UNCLOS (it becameparty thereto in 2004).Since spring 2006, Denmark conducted six major expeditions to collect dataon the seabed north of Greenland and, based on the geological, geophysical andother natural scientific data obtained and in accordance with Art.
76 of theUNCLOS, Denmark designated the outer limits of its Arctic shelf north ofGreenland, based on which it has been, since 2014; claiming a much larger part ofthe continental shelf than the size of its Arctic sector.According to Denmark’s submission, it is claiming a large portion of shelfwithin Russia’s Arctic sector. The Russian MFA, however, has not sent a protest toDenmark; it was noted that the Russian MFA “would be very well aware of theplans of the Danish party. Moreover, it has long been clear that Denmark wasgoing to claim an extended continental shelf to and even beyond the NorthPole.”202Denmark’s document has a section on the delimitation of maritime areaswith other Arctic states: Canada, Norway, Russia, and the US There, it is notedthat “some unresolved questions remain in relation to the delimitation of theNorthern Continental Shelf of Greenland.” These issues, in Denmark’s opinion,“need to be considered by reference to Article 76(10)” (on the priority of the ruleson delimitation of continental shelf between neighbouring states over the rules ongeological and other criteria of delineating the shelf from the International SeabedArea), as well as Art.
9 of Annex II to the UNCLOS (prohibiting the CLCS to201Based on Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 717 dated 16 June 1997 “On theProcedure for Approving Lists of Geographical Coordinates of the Points Defining the Outer Limits of theContinental Shelf of the Russian Federation”. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_120266/.202MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheRussianhttp://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/C4533848E85A09A0C3257DB00053569C.Federation.URL:176prejudice “matters relating to delimitation of boundaries between States withopposite or adjacent coasts”).
Denmark’s document states that “there are potentialoverlaps of entitlement to the Northern Continental Shelf of Greenland.” Forinstance, “the outer limits of the continental shelf of Canada that are likely to beproposed in its future submission in the Arctic Ocean may overlap the NorthernContinental Shelf of Greenland”; and that that matter would be discussed duringconsultations between Denmark and Canada. On Russia, Denmark’s documentreads that “On 27 March 2014 the Kingdom of Denmark together with theGovernment of Greenland, and the Russian Federation entered into the followingunderstanding by exchange of notes: ‘When one State makes its submission to theCommission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the other State immediatelyforwards a diplomatic note to the UN General Secretary which will specifically saythe following:1.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
