диссертация (1169188), страница 50
Текст из файла (страница 50)
83 of theUNCLOS), but rather to opt for delineating Arctic shelf from the “commonheritage of mankind”; b) the Russian agencies’ having outlined, under Art. 76, theouter limit of the Russian shelf in the Arctic, significantly reducing it as comparedto Russia’s Arctic sector; c) the fact that even after such self-limitation of its shelf,Russia has not completed mapping its shelf boundaries in other areas of the Arctic:no positive recommendation was issued on Russia’s 2001 submission.Accordingly, using this to its advantage, Denmark fixed a legally larger area of itsshelf as compared to the area of its Arctic sector.
In addition, it has agreed on a setof notes with the Russian MFA, according to which Russia would “not makeobjections regarding the Commission’s examination” of Denmark’s submission, orobjections regarding the Commission’s “issuing recommendations” on it.2) Denmark assumes the priority of the rules of international law on thedelimitation of continental shelf between neighbouring states and clearly indicatesthe need to enter into bilateral agreements on the delimitation of Arctic shelf withCanada and Russia.3) Denmark’s introduction, in its document, of a number of constructsmentioned above that are absent from the UNCLOS or the 1958 GenevaConventions on the Law of the Sea, shows the lack of legal purity in its currentinternational legal position on the Arctic shelf, for the purposes of promotingDenmark’s national interests.4) That Denmark obtained Russia’s “blanket” consent not only to the Danish“submission” to the Commission, but also to the Commission’s issuance ofrecommendations thereon in the exchange of diplomatic notes is unprecedented.These diplomatic notes should undergo an expert examination at the FederalAssembly of the Russian Federation and the Security Council of the RussianFederation for consistency with Russia’s national interests.5) The position Denmark took has emphasized the urgency of deeper work221on a number of theoretical international legal issues:5.1.) How do Art.
76 (on the criteria for delineating shelf from the “commonheritage of mankind”) and Art. 83 (on the principles of shelf delimitation)correlate?5.2.) What is the correlation between customary international law on thecontinental shelf, including rules on the ipso facto and ab initio rights of thecoastal state to shelf, on the one hand, and, on the other, treaty rules of Art. 76 ofthe 1982 UNCLOS, including on the role of the Commission it established?Especially given that not all coastal states are parties to the UNCLOS.5.3.) How does international law resolve the issue on the limits of shelf,when the Commission and the coastal state differ as to whether the boundaries ofshelf drawn by the coastal state beyond 200 miles from the baselines meet theconventional criteria, or not? These issues beg further research.§ 5.
The opportunities for using foreign doctrines to prevent the loss of apart of Russian shelf inherent in the Russian “submissions” of 2001 and 2015In 1997, when neither Denmark nor Canada were parties to the UNCLOS,such an intention was, for the first time among Arctic states, voiced by Russia –during President B.N. Yeltsin’s term; before that, both the Russian Empire (from1825) and the Soviet Union consistently maintained a different Arctic policy,standing against the global internationalization of the Arctic and for bilateraldelimitation of rights in the region along meridians (sectoral lines) drawn to theNorth Pole from the eastern and western points of the coast in the Arctic Ocean ofeach of the Arctic states.
In spite of that widely recognized position and theopportunity in 1997 of sectoral delimitation of Arctic Ocean shelf between Arcticstates, that year the Government of the Russian Federation adopted a Resolutionprescribing to start work towards delineating Russian shelf in the Arctic from theInternational Seabed Area, via a risky, lengthy and costly procedure.249 Russian249Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No.
717 dated 16 June 1997 “On the Procedure forApproving Lists of Geographical Coordinates of the Points Defining the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf of theRussian Federation”. Russian Federation Code. 23 June 1997. No. 25. Art. 2939. P. 4888-4889.222scholarship (professors S.A.
Gureev and G.M. Melkov) characterized thatResolution as inconsistent with Russia’s national interests.250 Although the DeputyDirector of the Legal Department of the MFA of Russia justifies that new choice ofthe country’s Arctic policy made during President B.N. Yeltsin’s term,251 thescholarly criticism of that choice appears to be much more persuasive.252250Gureev 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. 162-164.Melkov G.M. K voprosu o statuse Pecherskogo i Okhotskogo morei [On the Status of the Pechora and OkhotskSeas]. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 4. 2014. P. 41, etc..251Titushkin V.Yu. K voprosu o vneshnikh granitsakh kontinental’nogo shel’fa Rossiiskoi Federatsii v Arktike.Mezhdunarodnoe morskoe pravo. Stat’i pamyati A.L.
Kolodkina [On the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf ofthe Russian Federation in the Arctic. International Law of the Sea. Articles in Memoriam of A.L. Kolodkin]. М.2013. P. 223-252.252Nikolaev A.N., Peshchurov I.S. Pravovye vozmozhnosti predotvrashcheniya poteri Rossiei vysokoshirotnogouchastka arkticheskogo shel’fa [The Legal Opportunities for Preventing Russia’s Loss of High-Latitude ArcticShelf] // Sovremennye proizvoditel’nye sily. Fundamental’nye issledovaniya prostranstvennogo razvitiya [Forces ofProduction Today. Fundamental Studies in Spatial Development]. No. 1, 2014; Zhudro I.S.
Obychno-pravovyenormy kak komponent unikal’nogo istoricheski slozhivshegosya statusa Arktiki [Customary International Law as aComponent of the Unique Historically Crystallized Status of the Arctic] // Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo)federal’nogo universiteta. Seriya “Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki” [Northern (Arctic) Federal University Journal.“Humanities and Social Studies” Series]. 2014. No. 6; Peshchurov I.S. Rezhim dna Severnogo Ledovitogo okeanasoglasno mezhdunarodnomu obychnomu pravu [Regime of the Arctic Ocean Floor under Customary InternationalLaw] // MJIL. 2014.
No. 3(95), July-September. P. 145-166; Zhudro I.S. Regional’nyi i global’nyi urovnimezhdunarodnogo pravovogo rezhima Severnogo Ledovitogo okeana [Regional and Global Levels of theInternational Legal Regime of the Arctic Ocean] // International Conference of Representatives of States Membersof the Arctic Council, States Observers of the Arctic Council and Foreign Scholars on the Current Problems ofSustainable Development and Safety in the Arctic. Naryan-Mar, 5-7 August 2014; I.S. Zhudro. Sravnitel’nyi analizaktual’nykh podkhodov k resheniyu problemy mezhdunarodno-pravovogo zakrepleniya granits kontinental’nogoshel'fa Rossii v Arktike [Comparative Analysis of the Current Approaches to Resolving the Issues of InternationalLegal Determination of the Boundaries of Russia’s Continental Shelf in the Arctic]// Eurasian Law Journal. No.
1(80) 2015. P. 19-24; I.S. Zhudro. Mezhdunarodno-pravovoi rezhim Severnogo Ledovitogo okeana v usloviyakhglobalizatsii. Veroyatnye riski i ugrozy natsional'noi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii v Arktike [The InternationalLegal Regime of the Arctic Ocean in the Context of Globalisation: Likely Threats to the Security of the RussianFederation in the Arctic] // Armiya i obshchestvo [The Army and Society]. No. 1 (44). 2015; I.S. Zhudro. Rol’mezhdunarodnykh obychaev v upravlenii Arktikoi [The Role of International Custom in Regulating the Arctic] //Pravo i upravlenie.
XXI vek. Nauchno-pravovoe izdanie. Mezhdunarodnyi institut upravleniya [Law andManagement. 21st Century. Academic and Legal Journal. International Institute of Management]. MGIMOUniversity. No. 1 (34) 2015; I.S. Zhudro. Znachenie mezhdunarodnykh obychaev v formirovanii pravovogo rezhimav Arktike [The Role of International Custom in the Formation of the Legal Regime in the Arctic] // Journal of theMoscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
No. 2 2015. P. 107-115; I.S. Zhudro. Rol’mezhdunarodnykh obychaev v formirovanii pravovogo rezhima Arktiki s uchetom praktiki Mezhdunarodnogo SudaOON [The Role of International Custom in the Formation of the Legal Regime of the Arctic in the Context of thePractice of the International Court of Justice] // Rossiiskoe pravosudie. Nauchno-prakticheskii zhurnal [RussianJustice. Academic Law Journal]. No.
2 (106)/ 2015. P. 66-73; I.S. Zhudro. Pravovoi rezhim Arktiki v usloviyakhglobalizatsii [Legal Regime of the Arctic in the Context of Globalisation] // Morskoi sbornik [Maritime Collection].No. 4 (2017) 2015; I.S. Zhudro. Mezhdunarodno-pravovoi rezhim Severnogo Ledovitogo okeana [The InternationalLegal Regime of the Arctic Ocean] // Zakon i pravo [Legislation and Law]. 2015 / 4. Unity-Dana.
P. 27-31; I.S.Zhudro. Sektoral’nyi metod kak sposob spravedlivogo razgranicheniya dna Severnogo Ledovitogo okeana [TheSectoral Method as a Means of Just Delimitation of the Arctic Ocean Floor] // Pravo i politika. Nauchnyi zhurnal[Law and Politics. Academic Journal].
No. 6/2015. Nota Bene. P. 817-825; I.S. Zhudro. K voprosu o rolimezhdunarodnykh obychaev v formirovanii pravovogo rezhima Arktiki [On the Role of International Custom in theFormation of the Legal Regime of the Arctic] // Kazan Journal of International Law and International Relations. No.7/2015; I.S. Zhudro. O neobkhodimosti modernizatsii mezhdunarodno-pravovoi kontseptsii obosnovaniya granits223That is, in 1997 Russia was the first to come up with the position, accordingto which there already is, in the Arctic Ocean, from the standpoint of internationallaw, an area of the “common heritage of mankind”, despite its obvious differencesfrom the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans; despite the fact that the ArcticOcean is a semi-closed ocean; that it is unique by its natural characteristics (islargely ice-bound); that the Arctic Ocean is the smallest of oceans (both by areaand average depths); that it is closed by 200-mile EEZs of only five states –Russia, Canada, the U.S., Denmark (Greenland), and Norway; that the ArcticOcean has a special regional status, which has formed historically owing to thelegal policy of those five Arctic states.253In political and legal terms, the opportunity for choosing, in 1997, a differentposition that did not presuppose delineating shelf from the “common heritage ofmankind”, was open to President Yeltsin’s advisors.
Under both generalinternational law and the 1982 UNCLOS, if, in the context of the unique nature ofthe Arctic Ocean described above, all of its floor constitutes continental shelfunder international law, it is subject to delimitation between the above five Arcticstates, without any submission to the CLCS, provided by the 1982 UNCLOS todelineate the shelf from the “common heritage of mankind”. And only if thecoordinated will of the Arctic states was to view the Arctic Ocean as legally nodifferent from the Indian or other “non-icy” ocean, only then could one concludethat there is an International Seabed Area (“the common heritage of mankind”) inthe Arctic Ocean.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
