диссертация (1169188), страница 49
Текст из файла (страница 49)
Denmark also pointed out that the rocksamples from the Amundsen Basin flank of the Lomonosov Ridge are similar tometamorphosed sedimentary rocks found in the Pearya Terrane, northernEllesmere Island as well as to other rocks of the Caledonides from Svalbard,Scandinavia, East Greenland, and the United Kingdom. Summing up all these data,Denmark claims that the Lomonosov Ridge shares a common geological historywith the onshore areas of Greenland and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago since atleast Caledonian times. In addition, the Lomonosov Ridge was a key featureinvolved in the Paleocene–Eocene Eurekan Orogeny that affected North Greenlandand Ellesmere Island.
Since the end of the Eurekan Orogeny, the LomonosovRidge has been firmly attached to the Lincoln Shelf and Northern ContinentalShelf of Greenland and has been drifting with the North American Plate.Denmark’sdocumentconcludesthattheLomonosovRidgeisbothmorphologically and geologically an integral part of the Northern ContinentalMargin of Greenland.In the “General Description of the Continental Margin”, Denmark stressesthat due to sparse data in the region, some details regarding the Arctic tectonichistory remain unclear. Despite that, there is broad agreement that the EurasiaBasin, which includes the Amundsen and Nansen basins, was formed by seafloorspreading beginning around 55–60 million years ago and that the Gakkel Ridge, anactive, ultra-slow seafloor spreading ridge, forms the present day plate boundary.That happening “separated the Lomonosov Ridge from the Barents and Kara216shelves.” Several spurs, including the Marvin Spur and the Geophysicist Spur,splay out from the main ridge along its Amerasia Basin flank.
The geologic originand history of these spurs is not completely clear. Seismic data point to thepresence of rift structures that have split from the Lomonosov Ridge. The Danishdocument further explains that the volcanism that formed the Alpha-Mendeleevridge complex was part of the “High Arctic Large Igneous Province”, whichaffected a large area of the Arctic Ocean, including the Lomonosov Ridge, FranzJosef Land, and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago beginning in the EarlyCretaceous and ending in the Late Cretaceous.
Together with the MendeleevRidge, the Alpha Ridge forms a complex feature across the Arctic Ocean. It issuggested that the Alpha-Mendeleev ridge complex is an oceanic plateaucontaining remnants of continental material. The research conducted evidences thatat least parts of the southern Alpha Ridge include highly attenuated continentalcrust.Such are Denmark’s geological and other natural scientific grounds providedin Art.
76 of the UNCLOS and underlying Denmark’s 2014 claims to aconsiderably larger part of the continental shelf than the size of its Arctic sector;unlike, let us recall, Russia which since 2001 (as noted by Professor S.A. Gureevin his speech in the Federation Council in 2005), to the detriment of its ownnational interests, self-limited its Arctic shelf, having abandoned the so-called area“A” (over 300,000 sq.km.) and is making claims to a smaller area of the Arcticthan the area of Russia’s Arctic sector.246 Professor Gureev’s approach is logical:after all, the said geological, distance-related and other criteria used by Denmark inthis “game of chess” under Art.
76 of the UNCLOS, are absent from Art. 83 of theUNCLOS (on delimitation of continental shelf between states with opposite oradjacent coasts). But the legal advisors of President Yeltsin preferred to ignore Art.246Gureev S.A. and Bunik I.V. O neobkhodimosti podtverzhdeniya i pravovogo zakrepleniya isklyuchitel’nykh pravRossii v Arktike [On the Need to Confirm and Legally Fix Russia’s Exclusive Rights in the Arctic].
– Morskayadeyatel’nost’ Rossiiskoi Federatsii: sostoyanie i problemy zakonodatel’nogo obespecheniya [Maritime Activities of theRussian Federation: State and Issues of Legislative Implementation]. Ed. by V.A. Popov. Мoscow. 2005. P. 162-163.21783 in 1997.
Denmark, however, given that it was much more beneficial for it to optfor implementing Art. 76, rather than Art. 83, wisely used it.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.”.247 It is peculiar that the Russian MFA used the term “extended continentalshelf” which appears neither in the UNCLOS, nor in the 1958 Geneva Conventionson the Law of the Sea; that term, however, as it was noted above, is used in thedomestic law of the US.Denmark’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 Commissionto prejudice “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 duringthe consultations between Denmark and Canada. Denmark’s document alsoprovides that “On 27 March 2014 the Kingdom of Denmark together with theGovernment of Greenland, and the Russian Federation entered into the247MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheRussianhttp://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/C4533848E85A09A0C3257DB00053569CFederation.URL:218understanding by exchange of notes regarding issues of delimitation between themof the Arctic Shelf.I should emphasise, first, that this “agreement” (as Denmark characterizes it)with Russia was never published by the Russian MFA.
The Federation Council andthe State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation have not giventheir consent regarding this agreement.Secondly, within the meaning of that international agreement (in the form ofan exchange of notes), Russia undertook: а) not to make objections regarding theCommission’s examination of Denmark’s 2014 submission; and, b) not to makeobjections regarding the Commission’s issuance of recommendations onDenmark’s submission.
Let us emphasize: Russia undertook not to object, eventhough Denmark’s shelf, according to Denmark’s submission, deeply “intrudes”into Russia’s Arctic sector, up to its 200-mile EEZ, running far from Denmark’szone. Given that Denmark’s “most interested” neighbouring state – Russia – is notobjecting to such a submission by Denmark, as follows from the notes exchangedbetween the Russian and Danish MFAs, the Commission may indeed adopt apositive recommendation on it; in that case, the limits of shelf set by Denmarkbased on the Commission’s recommendations, shall become “final and binding”(Art. 76(8) of the UNCLOS).
That, to the prejudice of Russia’s national interestsand to Denmark’s disproportionate benefit.Russia’s MFA, in its official commentary to Denmark’s submission, statedthat “the potential overlapping areas of shelf of our two countries in the highlatitude Arctic will be delimited bilaterally, through negotiations, based on theinternational law”,248 but for that, the Commission “will first need to determinethat the seabed areas claimed by Russia and Denmark, and, in the future, Canada,constitute continental shelf proper.” However, the CLCS has no such right underthe UNCLOS. Moreover, “delimitation” of the continental shelf is performed onlywith states with opposite or adjacent coasts, without any involvement of the CLCS248MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheRussianhttp://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/C4533848E85A09A0C3257DB00053569CFederation.URL:219(Art. 83 of the 1982 Commission). The CLCS joins in only when the coastal stateis performing the delineation of its shelf from the international seabed area bygeological and distance criteria set forth in Art.
76 of the UNCLOS. Denmark’ssubmission notes that the “final delimitation” of the continental shelf north ofGreenland “will, as appropriate, be determined through bilateral agreements.” Weshould note that the UNCLOS does not provide for such “final delimitation” afterthe “delineation” procedures carried out with the Commission’s involvement.Here, the Danish document makes a mistake similar to the one already present inthe MFA’s statement on that submission. It is positive, however, that here,Denmark, in complying with Art.
76 of the UNCLOS, proceeds from the priorityof international law rules on the delimitation of continental shelf betweenneighbouring states.Delimitation of the continental shelf in the Arctic based on bilateralagreements (Russia-Denmark, Russia-Canada, Russia-US) in line with the sectoralprinciple or the principle of equidistance, or both principles taken together, withoutdoubt, appear to be the most promising international legal option for agreeing onthe delimitation lines between the Arctic shelf of Arctic states. The attempts,involving the Commission, by each Arctic state to delineate its shelf from the“common heritage of mankind” under Art. 76 of the UNCLOS that Russiacommenced in 1997, is a path of delay and conflict, requiring, on top of that, greatbudget expense.
Moreover, that path also leads to a deadlock, since even if Russiadoes surrender over 300,000 sq.km. of Arctic shelf in its sector to the “commonheritage of mankind”, as the MFA and MNR of Russia suggest today, the“common heritage of mankind” boundaries in the Arctic Ocean will neverthelessnot close: the US, as shown above, does not recognize the conventional rules onthe “common heritage of mankind” as part of general international law or asobligations under Art. 76 of the UNCLOS.Conclusions.1) Denmark has built its international legal position on the Arctic shelf in a220legally thought-through way, having aptly used the legal steps of the Russian MNRand MFA since 1997: a) not to go along the way of delimiting continental shelf inthe Arctic (based on customary international law, confirmed in Art.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
