диссертация (1169188), страница 64
Текст из файла (страница 64)
Promoting the air of mutualunderstanding and cooperation between the US, Russia, and Beringia’s indigenouspeoples concerning the environmental protection as well as the preservation andinterpretation of historical and cultural monuments. 2.
Supporting the traditionalnatural resource use in Beringia, as well as the preservation of the uniquetraditional activities and industries of the indigenous inhabitants of the region. 3.Promoting research, interpretation and usage of natural and cultural resources of365TheBeringStraitRegionHeritage.PreliminaryReview.P.36.URL:http://www.nps.gov/akso/beringia/about/pdfs/Recon_study_optimized.pdf. (last accessed on: 24 October 2015).366Website of the “Beringia, A Shared Heritage” programme. URL: http://www.nps.gov/akso/beringia/beringia/ru–index.cfm. (last accessed on: 24 October 2015).367Ibid.281worldwide importance.
4. Promoting cultural exchange between the indigenouspeoples on both sides of the Bering Strait.”368Considering the above, it is possible to make a preliminary conclusion to theeffect that the two international legal terms – “the Bering Strait” and “the BeringStrait region” – must be clearly differentiated, the second one wider and includingthe first one. As for the term “Beringia”, the meaning provided by the Russianlegislation – the national park on the Chukchi Peninsula – should be considered theestablished one within the law of the Russian Federation.§ 2.
Avenues of Russia-U.S. cooperation in clarifying the Bering Straitregion’s legal regimeThe legal regime of any international strait is fundamentally important forthe global economy and international relations between states; it is sufficient torecall that the freedom of navigation in the high seas is not feasible without thelegally guaranteed right of free passage through international straits, as repeatedlyindicated in legal literature.
Therefore, it is not surprising that abrupt changes inthe regulations of passage through international straits, which affected the interestsof specific states, have caused interstate conflicts and even wars since ancienttimes.369The number of ships navigating the Bering Strait region is not static, whichled to the following remark: “The intensity of navigation is already considerableand it keeps increasing.”370 In 2012, the number of registered transit passagesthrough the Bering Strait by commercial vessels was approximately 500, twice asmuch as in 2008.
371 Some experts anticipate that due to the increasing commercialuse of the Northeast Passage the number of vessels passing through the Bering368Ibid.369Ana G. López Martín. International Straits: Concept, Classification and Rules of Passage. Springer. 2010. P. 19.370Workshop to identify several viable options for the protection of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas(EBSAs) from the possible negative effects of shipping and other maritime activities in the Bering Strait Region.WorkshopReport,26–28June2012.Nome,Alaska,USA.URL:http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_beringworkshopi2012_russian_2.pdf (last accessed on: 25 February 2016).371Berkman P.
A., Vylegzhanin A. N., Young O. R. Governing the Bering Strait Region: Current Status, EmergingIssues and Future // Ocean Development & International Law. 2016. V. 47. No. 2. P. 199.282Strait “will reach 1,000 per year by 2017 and increase to 2,000 per year in2021.”372Currently the Bering Strait is still covered in ice, including drift ice, duringmost of the year (from October to August). At the same time, it is stated that thetraffic separation schemes are lacking; there is no global navigation system; nopersistent satellite location system; no vessel movement management systems areyet agreed between the states bordering the strait, including those fit for limitedvisibility conditions; and, the automated vessel recognition system is functioningwith limitations. With increased navigation in the region, the following potentialrisks facing Russia and the US are recognized by the foreign researchers:373— air pollution and marine pollution, which includes the increase of oilspills and garbage discharges, etc.;— increasing noise disturbance, which might negatively affect thepopulation of sea mammals;— direct collisions of whales and other sea animals with vessels; in practice,such collisions lead to injuries or even death of the animal, as well as negativeconsequences for the vessel’s operation.
Such risks are highly plausible: forexample, bowhead whales seasonally congregate in the Bering Strait region as thewhole population transits through the strait twice a year. Walrus, which arepartially dependent on ice, also face the risk of ship collisions in spring and earlysummer (more precisely, from April to June);— negative influence on the traditional practices of the coastal communities(including indigenous ones) in the Bering Strait region due to the increase incommercial navigation (for example, sea animal hunters sail dozens of miles awayfrom the coast in small open boats);372Workshop to identify several viable options for the protection of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas(EBSAs) from the possible negative effects of shipping and other maritime activities in the Bering Strait Region.WorkshopReport,26–28June2012.Nome,Alaska,USA.URL:http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_beringworkshopi2012_russian_2.pdf (last accessed on: 25 February 2016).373Henry P.
Huntington, Raychelle Daniel, Andrew Hartsig, Kevin Harun, Marilyn Heiman, Rosa Meehan, GeorgeNoongwook, Leslie Pearson, Melissa Prior–Parks, Martin Robards, George Stetsoni. Vessels, risks, and rules:Planning for safe shipping in the Bering Strait // Marine Policy. –2015. –. V. 51. – P. 121. 119–127 pp. URL:http://ac.els–cdn.com/S0308597X14002012/1–s2.0–S0308597X14002012–main.pdf?_tid=baa3c5a0–9c3a–11e5–a42a–00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1449421355_71210a1f112d3cefded4fe2563c5ffae.283— increase of accidents at sea, including loss of steering control andstranding while avoiding collisions with an ice floe, due to the increase ofnavigation in the region.Among the recommended measures to minimize such risks analysts namethe improvement of the ship reporting system.At the “universal” level, these risks are investigated by the IMO.
Accordingto Resolution MSC.31(63) adopted on 23 May 1994, Chapter V of the Appendix tothe 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (the SOLASConvention) was amended to include Regulation 8/1 “Ship Reporting System.”According to the regulation, the suggestion to create a ship reporting system maybe submitted to the IMO by any state party to the SOLAS Convention, and if “twoor more Governments have a common interest in a particular area, they shouldformulate proposals for a co-ordinated ship reporting system on the basis ofagreement between them.” Russia and the US undoubtedly have a “commoninterest” to create such a system in the Bering Strait region. If the IMO adopts sucha system, its regulations become mandatory, i.e.
every commercial vessel flying aflag of an IMO member state is required to follow the said ship reporting system.After the adoption of the proposal by the IMO, the states responsible for theproposal are responsible for implementing the ship reporting system. The coastalstates maintaining the ship reporting system submit navigational information aboutthe coastal area in question to the vessels which, in turn, share certain data with thecoastal state.The commonly suggested example of such an “interactive” system is theship reporting system in the Barents Sea region. Indeed, in November 2012, the91st session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee adopted the new shipreporting system in the Barents Sea region following a joint proposal by Norwayand the Russian Federation.
The new ship reporting system came into force aslegally binding on 1 June 2013. The following categories of vessels passingthrough the Barents Sea are required to participate in the ship reporting system bynotifying the vessel traffic service centres in Vardø (Norway) or Murmansk284(Russia): all ships with a gross tonnage of 5,000 and above; all tankers; all shipscarrying hazardous cargoes; a vessel towing when the length of the tow exceeds200 metres; and any ship not under command, restricted in their ability tomanoeuvre or having defective navigational aids.374In the Bering Strait region itself, the US Coast Guard uses a voluntary shipreporting system known as the Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel RescueSystem (AMVER).375 Vessel owners who voluntarily participate in this system areobliged to send the sailing plan, the vessel position report (every 48 hours until thearrival to the port of destination), the deviation report and the arrival report.376English-language academic papers name the improvement of navigationalsafety measures as another way to decrease navigational risks in the Bering Straitregion.
In this context, the UNCLOS defines two categories of navigational safetymeasures: 1) “sea lane designation” and 2) “traffic separation scheme prescription”(Article 41). According to Regulation 8 of the Appendix to the SOLASConvention, one such measure is defined: “ships’ routeing.”The IMO adopts such measures on the global level to improve navigationalsafety, based on proposals developed by the corresponding coastal states. TheIMO’s official website lists various elements of ships’ routeing:• traffic separation scheme, i.e.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
