By: James Harrison

James Harrison — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:37:12 +0000

I am not convinced that a separate legal framework for Arctic resources is necessary. Whilst not all states with an interest in the Arctic region are currently a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the provisions of the Convention are nevertheless widely accepted as providing the legal framework for all ocean activities as a matter of customary international law. The Ilussiat Declaration would seem to further confirm this. Indeed, all states involved, including the United States, have accepted the Commission on the Outer Limits on the Continental Shelf as the proper forum through which claims to the continental shelf in the Arctic region should be decided. Article 76 of the UNCLOS was the yardstick by which the United States assessed (and criticised) the Russian claims to an outer continental shelf in its observations on the Russian submissions to the Commission – see http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01/CLCS_01_2001_LOS__USAtext.pdf.
Canada, Denmark, Norway and Japan have also made observations on the Russian submissions to the Commission.

It is ultimately up to the Commission, an independent body of experts, to decide whether or not the claim is valid. In 2002, the Commission recommended that Russia make a revised submission in respect of the Central Arctic Ocean and so the claim is still pending. It is this process that should also be used to determine claims by other states to an extended continental shelf in the Arctic area. Indeed, all of those states which are a party to the UNCLOS are under an obligation to seek the approval of the Commission before they assert claims over an extended continental shelf. The position is slightly more complex for the United States and it is debatable whether they are permitted to formally claim a continental shelf beyond 200 miles without becoming a party to the UNCLOS.

Comments on: Is the “race for the North Pole” over?

By: James Harrison