диссертация (1169188), страница 62
Текст из файла (страница 62)
Lawrence Island and the northern Bering Seanorth through the Bering Strait to the southern Chukchi Sea and Cape Lisburne.”349That statement is inaccurate: unlike the term “the Bering Strait”, the term“the Bering Strait region” includes not only the “marine area” but also the “land”.This inaccuracy, however, is rectified in another English-language journal.Thus, in the joint scientific paper by American and Russian lawyerspublished in the Ocean Development and International Law Journal, it is noted thatincluding only marine components (that is, the Bering Strait, the southern ChukchiSea, the northern Bering Sea) into the definition of “the Bering Strait region” is notlegally correct, first and foremost because a wider definition of this term is foundin a number of international legal texts,350 which primarily include the followingRussian-American documents: the 26 May 2011 Joint Statement of the President ofthe United States of America and the President of the Russian Federation onCooperation in the Bering Strait Region,351 the 8 September 2012 Joint Statementof Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton OnCooperation in the Bering Strait Region,352the 28 October 2013 DraftMemorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of348BeringStraitRegionCaseStudy//InstituteoftheNorth[website].URL:http://www.institutenorth.org/assets/images/uploads/files/5.5–Bering–Strait–Region–Case–Study.pdf.
(last accessedon: 24 October 2015).349Andrew Hartsig, Ivy Fredrickson, Carmen Yeung and Stan Senner. Arctic bottleneck: protecting the Bering Straitregion from increased vessel traffic. // Ocean and Coastal law Journal”, Vol. 18:1. 2014. P. 35. (P. 35–53).350Paul Arthur Berkman, Alexander N. Vylegzhanin & Oran R. Young. Governing the Bering Strait Region:Current Status, Emerging Issues and Future Options // Ocean Development & International Law. – 2016. – V. 47.No. 2. – P.189.351URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/938 (last accessed on: 29 May 2016).352URL: http://www.mid.ru/maps/us/–/asset_publisher/unVXBbj4Z6e8/content/id/144298 (last accessed on: 29May 2016).273America and the Government of the Russian Federation Symbolically LinkingNational Parks in the Bering Strait Region.In all of the above documents the term “the Bering Strait region” refers toboth maritime and land areas: the Beringia National Park (Russia), the BeringLand Bridge National Preserve, the Cape Krusenstern National Monument (theUS).While these documents, of course, are not international treaties and do notcreate rights or obligations on Russia or the US within the meaning of the 1969Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they nevertheless reflect the generallegal stance of the parties on the issues discussed therein, and delineate the alignedprospective cooperation trends between the two neighbouring states bordering theBering Strait.Foreign political texts suggest the term “the Bering Strait social-ecologicalsystem,” meaning, as they claim, interacting elements, that is, indigenous peopleand ecosystems forming part of their environment, including marine mammals, seaice and coastal areas; and, also, social institutes for supporting such ecosystems.This social ecological system of the Bering Strait is characterized as complicated,prone to varying conditions, belonging to multiple jurisdictions, comprising morethan one culture.353 However, the term is not used in international legal documents.The preliminary conclusion is that the term “the Bering Strait region” is notnew for the international legal practice of Russia or the US.
There are differentdefinitions of that term given by foreign political and legal researchers, but bothRussia and the US have a need to achieve a legally uniform definition. In suchcontext, it is suggested to approach the Bering Strait region, first of all, as a singleentity for international legal regulation, since the issues associated with theclarification of the status of the region’s marine components are interlinked withthe regulation of navigation; legal support for subsistence of the coastal localcommunities, especially the traditional ways of life of indigenous peoples; with the353Building resilience through interlocal relations: Case studies of polar bear and walrus management in the BeringStrait / Chanda L. Meek [and others] // Marine Policy.
– 2008. – V.32. No. 6. – P. 1080.274necessity to improve environmental protection. Secondly, if Russia and the USadopt a coordinated decision to change or clarify any component of the BeringStrait region’s legal regime, it would be desirable to take into account the wholecomplex of the region’s particularities and other factors. Thirdly, it is reasonable toview the Bering Strait, the only maritime link between the Arctic and the PacificOcean, as a systemically important element of the term “the Bering Strait region”,given that the Strait has been qualified as an international strait for many centuriesby both Russia and the US, even though not all of the four channels constituting itare de facto used for international navigation.
Fourthly, the term “the Bering Straitregion” also comprises the northern Bering Sea, the southern Chukchi Sea as wellas the national park territories of Russia and the US on the Chukchi Peninsula andthe Alaska Peninsula; those territories constitute a specially protectedtransboundary natural zone — according to the legislation of Russia and the US, aswell as the international agreements between the two states. Fifthly, the term “theBering Strait region” additionally comprises the territories of the islands of BigDiomede (Russia), Little Diomede (the US) and Fairway Rock (the US).In the overall context of contemporary changes in the Arctic Ocean’s naturalcharacteristics, the legal regime of the Bering Strait region is objectivelycharacterized in the interdisciplinary paper Environmental Security in the ArcticOcean;354 less so in the Workshop Report on Integrated Policy Options for theBering Strait Region prepared by the National Center for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis of the University of California (the “Report”).355 Both of these sourcesnote that the global climate and economic change in the Arctic Region as well asthe increasing accessibility of commercial services drive the current increase ofeconomic activity in the Arctic Ocean: above all commercial navigation, the power354Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean.
Ed. by P. Berkman and A. Vylegzhanin. Springer. Dordrecht. 2013.459 pp.355Workshop on integrated policy options for the Bering Strait Region. National Center for Ecological Analysis andSynthesis (NCEAS). University of California Santa Barbara. 20–24 October 2014 // Arctic Options [website]. URL:http://arcticoptions.org/wp–content/uploads/2015/06/Final_Bering–Strait–Workshop–Report_13JUN15.pdf(lastaccessed on: 23 February 2016). No Russian version of this document is available.275industry, the development of regulated fisheries within the 200-mile EEZs ofArctic states, and a surge of tourism in the Arctic Region.
The growth of economicactivity by states from outside the Arctic Region must be specifically noted: forexample, since 2000, China has been investing considerable capital into scientificresearch in the Arctic Ocean, which includes the establishment of science andresearch bases.356The changes currently unwinding in the Arctic Ocean also influence thenatural ecosystems of the Arctic mainland, in the areas inhabited by indigenouspeoples and other native inhabitants of the Arctic states. Both the aforementionedEnvironmental Security in the Arctic Ocean paper and the Report note that Icelandconsiders itself an Arctic coastal state due to the fact it has territorial sea and acontiguous zone north of the Polar Circle, and there being no mainland betweenthose maritime regions (in the Atlantic) and the Arctic Ocean.
The Arctic coastalstates, however, in addition to their territorial sea and contiguous zones alsocontrol the 200-mile EEZs, which surround the high seas in the central ArcticOcean.It is also noted that the Arctic Ocean is undergoing ecological changes at ahigher rate than other regions of the Earth, which leads to highly intensive andconsiderable transformations of the Arctic states’ coastlines. The perennial icecovering considerable areas of the Arctic Ocean, which, according to someestimates, has been there for over 800,000 years, remains the distinctivecharacteristic of the Arctic Ocean, which sets it apart from other oceans; however,it is noted that even the surface of those high-latitude areas is slowly undergoingchanges: perennial ice is diminishing, replaced by seasonal ice.As noted by researchers, these factors cause the accessibility of the ArcticOcean for commercial activity to increase.
As a result, states and their businessesare planning to explore and exploit the Arctic oil and gas deposits.356Cited in P.K. Gautam. Mapping Chinese Oil and Gas Pipelines and Sea Routes. Strategic Analysis. – July 2011.– V. 35. No. 4. P. 607.276In general, an extensive international legal framework applies to the BeringStrait region, which includes the 2011 Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronauticaland Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, the 2013 Agreement onCooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic,the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, etc.Starting from 1 January 2017, the Polar Code developed under the auspices of theIMO and examined earlier herein (Chapter 4) also applies to the Bering Straitregion.The above characterizes the general political and legal background of thecurrent efforts to clarify the Bering Strait region’s legal regime, undoubtedly,focusing on the Bering Strait.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
