диссертация (1169188), страница 48
Текст из файла (страница 48)
4 of Annex II to the UNCLOS. Thedocument concerns the continental shelf area north of Greenland that from thestandpoint of international law constitutes Denmark’s continental shelf.There is no such term as “partial submission” in the UNCLOS; nor is itfound in any of the four 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, whichtogether make the multilateral treaty basis of the legal regime of maritime areasalong with the UNCLOS. At the same time, the practice of performance of Art.
76of the UNCLOS has gone along the way of submission of “partial” data on thepositions of coastal states regarding its continental shelf to the CLCS in cases236UN 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. 883.211where 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 by 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 CLCS is set forth by Art. 4 of Annex II to the UNCLOS) (for some reason, in1997-2001, Russia did not use the “partial submission” option).According to its submission to the CLCS, Denmark, a state with the territoryof a little over 43 thousand sq.km, claims to exercise sovereign rights with respectto a plot of over 890 thousand sq.km – beyond its 200-mile EEZ, that is, an areatwenty times the territory of Denmark itself, as well as considerably exceeding thearea of its Arctic sector.
That shelf area also includes the North Pole.237 This ishow Denmark’s claims to such vast expanses were commented on by Professor atthe University of British Columbia (Canada), M. Byers: “Russia, Denmark andCanada could negotiate temporary “constraint lines” for the purpose of makingsubmissions to the CLCS… Any set of lines could plausibly be used for atemporary delimitation, with one possibility being a sector. Arctic Ocean –obvious.
Because Russia chose this avenue in its 2001 submission, Denmark,having expressed an interest in areas on the Russian side of the North Pole, mightbe expected to resist this approach.”238 Denmark’s Minister of Foreign Affairs M.Lidegaard noted that that step was “an attempt to honestly and accurately presentgeological data.”239 Prof. Byers (Canada) reminds: “The fact that the 2001 Russiansubmission stopped at the North Pole could be taken as an offer – extended in thehope that Canada and Denmark would likewise consider it reasonable to use thePole as an artificial boundary, either on the basis of the sector theory in its fullsense, or in recognition of the symbolic significance of the location.
In the lattercase, it might be considered reasonable to draw a lateral boundary across the237UN 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. 883.238M. Byers. International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press. 2013. P. 114.239According 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/212portion of the ridge that is closest to the Pole. A distance-based approach, incontrast, would draw a median (i.e. equidistance) line across the ridge based on theopposing coastlines of Russia and Greenland/Ellesmere Island.”240Danish 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.241The 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 Commission. 242 Denmark’s ambitioussubmission to the Commission in 2014 under Art. 76 of the UNCLOS, as alreadynoted, was “prompted” by the submission to that Commission in 2001 by theRussian Federation.243 It is precisely the actions of the Russian MNR and MFA in1997-2001 that opened that “proof race”, which created legal and political risks forthe national interests not only for Russia, but also for other Arctic states: instead of240Byers M. Op.
cit. P. 119.241MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheKingdomofDenmark.http://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=71574E42-6115-4D16-9C8A-4C056F8603F3.URL:242Denmark’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-15-20-2014.243Based 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 theContinentalShelfoftheRussianFederation”.URL:URL:http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_120266/.213delimiting shelf under treaties, they launched the procedure of delineation of theirshelf from the “common heritage of mankind”; instead of bilateral and regionalformat of decision-making on issues of continental shelf boundaries, they triggeredthe “global” format, where any of over 160 state parties of the UNCLOS can file tothe said Commission its commentaries to the delineation of Arctic shelf from the“common heritage of mankind.”244 Prior to 2001, Denmark did not endorse theapplication to the area north of Greenland of the provisions of Art. 76 of theUNCLOS (on the delineation by the coastal state of its shelf from the “commonheritage of mankind” under geological and distance criteria); accordingly, it didnot take a stand for addressing the CLCS for such a limitation, and it was not partyto the UNCLOS (becoming one in 2004).Since spring 2006, Denmark conducted six major expeditions to collect dataon the seabed north of Greenland: the LORITA expedition (2006) for gatheringseismic data (refracted waves method), together with Canada; the LOMROG Iexpedition (2007), using the Swedish Oden icebreaker, together with the SwedishPolar Research Secretariat, with the use of Russian nuclear icebreaker “50 LetPobedy” (50th Anniversary of the Victory), as well as involving a Canadianhydrographer; the expedition collected primary bathymetric, seismic andgravimetric data.
The LOMBAG expedition dealt with collecting bathymetric andgravimetric data on sea ice (2009), based in the Canadian glacial camp on WardHunt island; the LOMGRAV expedition for gathering aero geophysical data(2009) on the Lomonosov Ridge; the LOMROG II expedition (2009), using theSwedish Oden icebreaker, together with the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat,involving Swedish and Russian hydrographers and collecting bathymetric, seismicand gravimetric data; the LOMROG III expedition (2012), using the Swedish Odenicebreaker, together with the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, for sampling244Proposals to the Roadmap for Developing the International Legal Bases for Russia’s Cooperation in the Arctic.RIAC, No.
VI. Chief ed. I.S. Ivanov. Мoscow. 2013 г. P. 29-30. I.S. Peshchurov. Rezhim dna SevernogoLedovitogo okeana soglasno mezhdunarodnomu obychnomu pravu [Regime of the Seabed of the Arctic Oceanunder Customary International Law]. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 3. 2014. P. 146-169. Melkov G.M.K voprosu o statuse Pecherskogo i Okhotskogo morei [On the Status of the Pechora and Okhotsk Seas]. MoscowJournal of International Law. No. 4.
2014. P. 45-46.214rock material and collecting bathymetric, seismic and gravimetric data.245 Based onthe geological, geophysical and other natural scientific data obtained, actingpursuant to Art. 76 of the UNCLOS, Denmark outlined the outer limits of itsArctic shelf north of Greenland (Annex 9 – Fig.
1).In accordance with Art. 76(7) of the UNCLOS, Denmark may delineate theouter limits of its continental shelf by straight lines not exceeding 60 nautical milesin length, connecting fixed points, defined by coordinates of latitude and longitude.The Danish document explains that the outer limits of the “northerncontinental shelf of Greenland” are drawn in straight lines connecting the pointsunder Gardiner’s and Hedberg’s formulas, as well as the points, limiting them bydistance and depth according to Art. 76 of the UNCLOS. From the “Eurasian” sideof the Lomonosov Ridge, the outer limits of the northern continental shelf ofGreenland stretch to the 200-mile EEZs of Norway (around Spitsbergen), on theone hand, and Russia, on the other. From the “Amerasian” side of the LomonosovRidge, the outer limits of the continental shelf go up to the 200-mile EEZs ofCanada, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other (Annex 9 – Fig.
2). The“General Description of the Continental Margin” states that the northerncontinental shelf of Greenland is a geologically complex area that “has beenaffected by rifting and extension, compression, strike-slip movements, andvolcanism.” That evolution resulted in rise from the seabed “in an amalgamation ofseafloor highs and other features, that includes the Lomonosov Ridge, the GakkelRidge, the Alpha-Mendeleev ridge complex and the Chukchi Borderland.” Thepart of the Arctic Ocean floor referred to in the 2014 submission as the shelf ofDenmark, is “morphologically continuous with the land mass of Greenland” andconstitutes an “integral part of the Northern Continental Margin of Greenland.”That “is narrow toward the east, the Wan-del Shelf, where it is part of the shearmargin between North-East Greenland and Svalbard.” The same “broadens to thewest into the Lincoln Sea where it forms the Lincoln Shelf, which merges into the245The Continental Shelf Project.
URL: http://a76.dk/greenland_uk/north_uk/index.html215Lomonosov Ridge.” In that area, “the Lomonosov Ridge has the form of a shallowplateau.” It is named in this area, due to this, the “Lomonosov Ridge Plateau.” It isnoted that the Lomonosov Plateau (Ridge) is a strip of fragmentary continentalcrust that divides the Arctic Ocean into two major basins: the Eurasian andAmerasian Basins. This floor rise extends to almost 1,800 km through the entireArctic Ocean from the Lincoln Shelf to the shelf of the East Siberian Sea. Its widthvaries from 45 to 200 km and it rises from the ocean floor for more than 4,200 m,reaching the height of less than 400 m below sea level. The shallowest part of theRidge is located toward Greenland.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
