диссертация (1169188), страница 51
Текст из файла (страница 51)
The term “International Seabed Area” (“the common heritage ofmankind”) is nowhere to be found in the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law ofthe Sea, but it was introduced in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982(primarily in its Art. 1 and Part XI); in this case, not only Russia and Denmark, butkontinental’nogo shel’fa Rossiiskoi Federatsii v Severnom Ledovitom okeane [On the Need to Modernize theInternational Legal Concept of Substantiating the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation inthe Arctic Ocean] // Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. No. 8 (128) 2015.
P. 10-14; I.S. Zhudro. Omodernizatsii mezhdunarodno-pravovoi kontseptsii obosnovaniya vneshnikh granits kontinental’nogo shel’faRossiiskoi Federatsii v Arktike [On the Modernization of the International Legal Concept of Substantiating theOuter Limits of the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation in the Arctic] // Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe ichastnoe pravo [Public and Private International Law Journal]. 2015 No.
6 (87). IG “Jurist”. P.12.253Arkticheskii region: problemy mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva [The Arctic Region: Issues of InternationalCooperation]. Vol. 3. Primenimye pravovye istochniki [Applicable Law]. М. 2013. P. 11-12.224also other Arctic states that participate in the 1982 UNCLOS would be obliged,under Art. 76, to delineate their shelf from the “common heritage of mankind” bygeological, distance and other criteria listed in that article.Even by now, after the 1997 self-limitation by B.N.
Yeltsin’s advisors of thecountry’s Arctic shelf in favour of the “common heritage of mankind”, there is nolegally formulated will of all five Arctic states as to there being an area of the“common heritage of mankind” in the centre of the Arctic. All the more there wasnone in 1997. That will would not have corresponded to the five Arctic states’national interests at that: if such a coordinated will on their part had beenexpressed, it would have been followed by the reinforcement of the claims of nonArctic states to oil and gas and other natural resources of the Arctic Ocean floor; itwould trigger new areas of interstate competition; it would also cause harm to theregional legal identity of the Arctic historically formed through treaties of theArctic states themselves starting from 1825.254The silver lining, however, is that the Russian MNR and MFA have takeninto account the criticism of the 2001 submission:Thus, the Russian 2015 submission is this time qualified as a “partial” one,which allows subsequently to once again go back and revise the limits of the ArcticOcean continental shelf.255The revised partial submission to the CLCS prepared by the RussianFederation in August 2015 is also based on Art.
76 of the 1982 UNCLOS. Theclaimed area is a little bigger than the area referred to in the first submission by theRussian Federation (made on 10 December 2001), which was reviewed at theCommission’s 11th Session that took place from 24 to 28 June 2002 but did notreceive its positive recommendation.Is it lawful and does it correspond to the interests of the Russian Federationto introduce the term “extended or outer continental shelf”? No such term appears254Vylegzhanin A.N. Pravovoe polozhenie Arkticheskogo regiona v dokumentakh [Documents on the Legal Statusof the Arctic Region]. / Arkticheskii region: problemy mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva [The Arctic Region:Issues of International Cooperation]. Vol.
3. Primenimye pravovye istochniki [Applicable Law]. М. 2013. P. 14-44.255URL:http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01_rev15/2015_08_03_Exec_Summary_Russian.pdf225in the 1982 UNCLOS, let alone in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.According to both these universal conventions, the sovereign rights of a coastalstate are exercised over a single body of continental shelf, integral in its length.Nevertheless, the term “outer continental shelf” is relied upon as a key term by thelegal counsel of the MFA of Denmark B. Kunoy in his article about thedelimitation of the areas of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Theauthor does not hesitate to suggest introducing the term “outer continental shelf”(as meaning beyond 200 n.
miles) into legal scholarly use, while admitting that it isabsent from the conventional defined terms, because there exists in internationallaw only one single continental shelf. But, in his opinion, “that continental shelf issubject to two alternative, and mutually exclusive, definitions”, hence the spatialsize of the shelf in the area beyond 200 nm depends on geological,geomorphological and bathymetric criteria. The author explains the soundness ofthis terminological novelty by saying that there are no issues in drawing the outerlimits of shelf within 200 nm, but they arise beyond those limits, and the primaryissue here is whether to opt for delineation of the shelf from the InternationalSeabed Area, or, for neighbouring states, to delimit shelf without conductingsophisticated research and delineation procedures provided in Art.
76 of the 1982UNCLOS. Unlike the Danish diplomat and lawyer, Professor Magnusson of theReykjavik University believes that the term “outer” or “extended”, just as the term“inner continental shelf”, allegedly meaning shelf within up to 200 miles, “are notcorrect”, and not only because they are absent from the universal law of the seaconventions, but also because the mistake of introducing those terms has alreadybeen pointed out in an international arbitral award in the dispute between Barbadosand the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Indeed, in that award of an interstatearbitral tribunal, it is noted that “there is in law only a single continental shelf”,rather than “inner continental shelf” and, separately, “extended” or “outer”continental shelf.226The Russian submission of 2015 to the CLCS indicates that the ground forclaiming “extended continental shelf” in the Arctic Ocean is that the claimed areasbelong to continental shelf, as well as the position of the outer limits of continentalshelf under Art.
76 of the UNCLOS within more than 200 nm from the baselinesused to measure the width of the territorial sea. In the case of the RussianFederation that distance never coincides with the boundary of Russia’s EEZ. Art.3(1) of Federal Law No. 191 On the Exclusive Economic Zone of the RussianFederation dated 17 December 1998 provides that “the outer limit of the exclusiveeconomic zone is located within 200 nautical miles from the baselines used tomeasure the width of the territorial sea, unless as otherwise provided by theinternational treaties of the Russian Federation.”In accordance with the requirements of Art. 75(1) of the 1982 UNCLOS,“subject to this Part, the outer limit lines of the exclusive economic zone and thelines of delimitation drawn in accordance with article 74 shall be shown on chartsof a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position.
Where appropriate,lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may besubstituted for such outer limit lines or lines of delimitation.” The boundary of theEEZ is shown on the map of the “Central Arctic Basin”, admiralty No. 91115,issued by the Directorate of Navigation and Oceanic Studies of the Ministry ofDefense (DNOS MD) of the Russian Federation in 2013.
The list of points ofstraight baselines was approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers ofthe USSR of 15 January 1985 and published in the collected “Maritime Legislationof the Russian Federation” (1994), issued by the DNOS MD (admiralty No.9055.1). The List contains coordinates of the end points of straight baselines, thelocation of normal baselines adjoining straight baselines, and expressly providesfor the “further low-water line” to specific points.The Arctic Ocean seabed discussed in the partial revised submission andrelevant to defining the outer limits of the continental shelf of the RussianFederation under Art. 76 of the UNCLOS, covers the geomorphological shelf ofRussian Arctic peripheral seas, part of the Eurasian Basin (the Nansen and227Amundsen Basins, the Gakkel Ridge) and the central part of the Amerasia Basinthat includes the Makarov Basin and the Central Arctic Underwater Ridgescomprising the Lomonosov Ridge, the Podvodnikov Basin, the Alpha-MendeleevRidge, the Chukchi Basin and the Chukchi Ridge.The following negotiations and relevant agreements on delimitation of thecontinental shelf beyond 200 miles, in the context of Art.
76(10) of the UNCLOSand Art. 9 of Annex II thereto merit special analysis.The Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation have held bilateralconsultations on delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the BarentsSea, as well as in the western part of the Nansen Basin in the Arctic Ocean. After20 December 2001, when the Russian Federation filed its first submission ondetermining the outer limits of continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean, theGovernment of the Kingdom of Norway sent, on 20 March 2002, a communicationto the UN Secretary-General (see notification CLCS.01.2001.LOS/NOR)concerning those areas.
There, the Kingdom of Norway pointed to a large area inthe central part of the Barents Sea beyond 200 nm from Norway’s and Russia’sbaselines being the subject matter of the above-mentioned bilateral talks with theRussian Federation, for the purposes of concluding an agreement on the maritimeboundary between these two states.At the same time, pursuant to rule 5(a) of Annex I to the Rules of Procedureof the Commission, the Kingdom of Norway consented to the Commission’sexamination and issuance of recommendations on the submission of the RussianFederation on establishing the outer limits of the continental shelf in the ArcticOcean in regard to those areas, without prejudice to the bilateral delimitation ofcontinental shelf between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation, andsubject to various aspects referred to in the abovementioned communication.Subsequently, the CLCS recommended, with respect to the area in theBarents Sea, to forward to it the charts and coordinates of the delimitation lineafter the agreement on the maritime boundary between the Kingdom of Norwayand the Russian Federation enters into force.228The Report of the Secretary-General “Oceans and the Law of the Sea” indocument A/57/57/Add.1 formulates the Commission’s recommendations in thisregard.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
