диссертация (1169188), страница 71
Текст из файла (страница 71)
As a scientificrecommendation within the legal framework of the 2013 Agreement, it may besuggested that Russia and the US reach an agreement on specific bilateralframeworks regarding the Bering Strait region. The states may also cooperate toencourage non-Arctic states to adopt the 2013 Agreement.The 1996 Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council311According to this document, the “Arctic 8” – Canada, Denmark, Finland,Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S. – declare the establishment of theArctic Council as a “high level forum” to: a) “provide a means for promotingcooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with theinvolvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitantson common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development andenvironmental protection in the Arctic”; b) “oversee and coordinate theprograms” established under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy on theArctic Monitoring and Assessment Program; Conservation of Arctic Flora andFauna; Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment; and EmergencyPreparedness and Response; c) “adopt terms of reference for and oversee andcoordinate a sustainable development program”; d) “disseminate information,encourage education and promote interest in Arctic-related issues”.Having no treaty status, the 1996 Declaration is nonetheless a constitutivetool of colossal importance, and the institutional mechanism established by theDeclaration – the Arctic Council – has proved its practicability over the lasttwenty years.According to the 1996 Declaration, observer status in the Arctic Council isopento:non-Arcticstates;inter-governmentalandinter-parliamentaryorganizations, global and regional; and non-governmental organizations that theCouncil determines can contribute to its work.
Thirteen non-Arctic states havebeen currently approved as observers to the Arctic Council: France, Germany, theNetherlands, Poland, Spain, the UK, the PRC, Italian Republic, Japan, theRepublic of Korea, the Republic of Singapore, the Republic of India.415 Vesselsbelonging to some of these states are passing through the Bering Straitincreasingly often.In 2009, the Arctic Council produced an analytical report on Arctic MarineShipping Assessment, undoubtedly highly important for the projection of thenavigation dynamic in the Bering Strait region. This document is particularly415URL: http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/ru/about-us/arctic-council-2/observers.312notable for its recommendations on safety at sea, development of marineinfrastructure, additional measures of environmental protection, including thedesignation of particularly sensitive sea areas in the Arctic.
The documentencourages Arctic states to cooperate with the IMO with a view to harmonize andupdate the standards of ship operations in the Arctic, even though, it was theArctic states (primarily, the USSR, Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark)that had the best expert and empirical basis for setting navigational safetystandards in the Arctic Ocean waters.The 2002 Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-covered Waters416and the 2009 Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters417Both these Guidelines are merely soft law legal documents and not treaties.The Guidelines consist of several parts.
Part A stipulates the requirements forvessel construction (on structure; subdivision into watertight compartments;stability; accommodation and escape measures; directional control systems;anchoring and towing arrangements; main machinery, auxiliary machinerysystems; on electrical installations). Part B sets forth the recommendedrequirements for equipment: fire safety, life-saving appliances and survivalarrangements; navigational equipment, and communications. Part C stipulates therecommended requirements for the operation of a vessel: operational guidelines,crewing, emergency equipment, environmental protection, damage control.Both documents include the term “Polar Class ships” to describe vesselsauthorized to navigate in polar waters.
The vessels of such class are subject tospecific requirements. First and foremost, they should meet the minimumenvironmental requirements: stricter standards of ship structure (double skinconstruction, double bottom — especially for ships involved in transportation ofhazardous materials); special equipment for operation in an extremely cold416Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic ice–covered waters, 2002 // Official website of the NOAA. URL:http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_1056–MEPC–Circ399.pdf.417Guidelines for ships operating in polar waters, 2009 // Official website of the IMO. URL:http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Attachments/Pages%20from%20E190E.pdf.313climate; structural and other means of preventing the exposure to an extremelycold climate; safety equipment specifically designed to function efficiently in anextremely cold climate; directional control systems of suitable design to enableefficient operation and navigation in polar waters.418The 2008 Ilulissat Declaration419The Declaration is a political and legal act of utmost importance that reflectsthe common understanding by the Arctic coastal states of the contemporary statusof the Arctic Ocean.This document, signed by the heads of foreign services of the five Arcticcoastal states – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the US – reflects thecoordinated international legal position of these states: on there being “no need todevelop a new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the ArcticOcean”; as well as the statement that “the law of the sea provides for importantrights and obligations concerning the delineation of the outer limits of thecontinental shelf, the protection of the marine environment, including ice-coveredareas, freedom of navigation, marine scientific research, and other uses of thesea.”The states that signed the 2008 Declaration assumed responsibility to solveany conflicts, including territorial ones, through peaceful means.
Existinginternational law provides a solid foundation for responsible management by thefive coastal states and other users of the Ocean. The 2008 Declaration expressesthe obligation of the Arctic coastal states to “keep abreast of the developments inthe Arctic Ocean and continue to implement appropriate measures.”The document notes that the Arctic coastal states play a key role inprotecting the unique ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean.
Shipwrecks and subsequentpollution of the marine environment may cause irreversible disturbance of the418Wanerman R. Freezing out noncompliant ships: why the Arctic Council must enforce the Polar Code // CaseWestern Reserve Journal of International Law. – 2015. – V. 47. – P. 439.419Ilulisat Declaration of the five states bordering the Arctic Ocean [The Arctic Region: Issues of InternationalCooperation]. In 3 vols. Vol. 3. Primenimye pravovye istochniki [Applicable Law].
М. 2013. P. 206–208. URL:http://russiancouncil.ru/common/upload/Arctic%20Anthology%20Vol%203.pdf.314ecological balance and major harm to the livelihoods of local inhabitants andindigenous communities of the Arctic. The Arctic coastal states are ready to “takesteps in accordance with international law both nationally and in cooperationamong the five states and other interested parties to ensure the protection andpreservation of the fragile marine environment of the Arctic Ocean.” In thisregard, the states intend to work together through the IMO to strengthen existingmeasures and develop new measures to improve the safety of maritime navigationand prevent or reduce the risk of ship-based pollution in the Arctic Ocean.
Thefive coastal states cooperate closely in the Arctic Ocean with each other and withother interested parties. This cooperation includes collection of scientific dataconcerning the continental shelf, protection of the marine environment, and otherscientific research. The document reflects their obligation to “continue tocontribute actively to the work of the Arctic Council.”The Ilulissat Declaration is extremely important in the present Arcticcontext. It is possible to offer an interpretation of this document according towhich the coordinated will of the five Arctic coastal states implies that there isneed to create a multilateral convention on the Bering Strait as it already fallswithin the existing international legal framework.§3.3.
Bilateral treaties applicable to the Bering Strait regionThe Convention for the Cession of the Russian Possessions in NorthAmerica to the United States, Concluded at Washington, 30 March 1867 (the“1867 Convention”)420The 1867 Convention delimited the boundary between Russia and the US, apart of which runs across the Bering Strait. “The western limit… passes through apoint in Behring’s Straits on the parallel of sixty-five degrees thirty minutes northlatitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes midway between theislands of Krusenstern… and the island of Ratmanoff… and proceeds due northwithout limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean.” According to the 1867420The National Archives Catalogue.
URL: https://research.archives.gov/id/299810/.315Convention, the inhabitants of the ceded Alaska had the right of option that is tochoose the Russian or US citizenship. Such a right had to be exercised withinthree years after the Agreement’s entry into force; Russia also handed over to theUS every military fortification on the ceded territory. The Bering Strait’s status asan international strait became even more significant, as the US became anotherstate bordering the strait. Therefore, in this political and legal context, Russia andthe US are “destined” to cooperate constructively on the issues of clarification ofthe contemporary legal regime of the Bering Strait even as the Arctic isundergoing climatic and economic changes.The 1990 USSR-US Maritime Boundary Agreement (the “1990 Agreement”)The 1990 Agreement determines the boundary between the Soviet Unionand the US in the maritime areas of the territorial sea, EEZs, and continentalshelf.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
