CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE SUR LARCTIQUE

ENJEUX ET EQUATIONS GEOPOLITIQUES AU 21E SIECLE

23 Rencontres Jacques Cartier - Lyon, 22-23 novembre 2010

http://canadatogether.hypotheses.org/arctic2010/



Alexander N. Vylegzhanin

 

 

Economic activities in the Arctic Ocean:

Universal, Regional and National Regulation

 

 

Introduction

  1. Legal Meaning of the term Arctic Ocean
  2. Universal Level of Regulation of Economic Activities in the Arctic Ocean
  3. Regional, Bilateral and National Levels of Regulation
  4. Conclusions

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

The Arctic, as noted, may turn out to be a laboratory for a new international legal regime[1]. The Ilulissat declaration of the Arctic coastal states provides, however, that there is no need to develop a new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean[2]. Assessing the contemporary policy framework for the Arctic Ocean and relevant challenges for International Law, different opinions are suggested by international lawyers[3]. Even more complicated and mosaic are political assessments of the potential growth of economic activities in the Arctic Ocean in the context of Environmental Security[4].

In this paper, after reminding about legal definition of the Arctic Ocean, I will deal with the following issues: first, universal level of contemporary international regulation of economic activities in the Arctic Ocean; second, regional and bilateral levels of such regulation; third, relevant national legislation of the Arctic coastal states in force, with focus on the Russian perspective.

 

1.      Legal meaning of the term Arctic Ocean

In his first book devoted to legal analysis of the Arctic Region in 1928 professor V. Lakhtin defined the Arctic as a polar space situated to the North of the Arctic Circle (66 30′ N)[5]. This simple and clear legal definition of the Arctic based on geography remains prevailing till today[6].

Within this north polar space bounded by the Arctic Circle maritime areas, including ice-covered areas, are called the Arctic Ocean. Again, this term is prevailing, but not unique: different terms are used in legal documents for the same notion: the Arctic Ocean; the Frozen Ocean; the Ice Seas, etc. Some authors, however, use the term the Arctic Ocean only for the most Northern maritime areas of the Arctic; the Arctic maritime areas according to this approach include not only the Arctic Ocean itself, but also Beaufort Sea, Barents Sea, Chukchi Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea and part of the Norwegian Sea and relevant islands[7]. This slight difference in definition is without practical significance since according to geography seas are parts of the oceans. As for islands they have a specific legal regime according to International Law.

The International Hydrographic Organization in 1953 indicated – for its needs – a different definition of the Arctic Ocean, excluding from the definition Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chuckchi and some other Arctic Seas. Different definitions of the Arctic, Arctic Ocean and Arctic waters are also used by individual states and the Arctic Council when identifying particular issues, with flexibility, based on functional needs[8].

National legislation on the Arctic Region and on economic activity and social rights of local communities in the Arctic of some Arctic States is also applicable to the northern areas of other oceans (of Bering Sea in Pacific Ocean, for example). Again, the purpose of this legal fiction is understood in the context of a specific national legislation and consequently is of minor influence on International legal regime of the Arctic Ocean.

Thus, there are no substantial reasons to disagree with the simple definition of the Arctic Ocean suggested in 1928 by professor Lakhtin. As noted by the Co-Director of the Advanced Research Workshop Environmental Security of the Arctic Ocean (13-15 October 2010, Cambridge), an additional advantage of defining the boundary of the Arctic Ocean based on the Arctic Circle is that it provides a uniform circumpolar position, which can easily be identified by tools such as global positioning systems. Thus, the definition suggested in 1928 and confirmed in 2010 may be considered as generally accepted: the Arctic Ocean is defined as the circumpolar marine region North of the Arctic Circle (66.5N)[9].

This definition is important, inter alia, because basing on it only five states are Arctic coastal states, that is Canada, Denmark (because of Greenland), Norway, Russia and USA (because of Alaska), each of them having internal waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. The term Arctic States means usually the group of eight States the territories of which are crossed by the Arctic Circle; that is, in addition to the five Arctic coastal States mentioned above – Finland, Iceland and Sweden. These eight Arctic States are also members of the Arctic Council.

This is a factual and legal reality, the result of application in the Arctic of the principal that the land dominates the sea[10].

And since the coastal length of a state influence significantly the extent of its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, its interesting to compare relevant data in case of the Arctic coastal states (table 1).

 

Table 1. Data on the comparability of the coastal lengths in the Arctic Ocean of the Arctic coastal states[11]

 

 

 

Country/territory

the arctic coastal lengths (taking into account islands)

the arctic continental coastal lengths (without taking into account islands)

km

sea miles

 

km

sea miles

 

Russia

 

43 700

23 570

23 000

12 420

Norway (arctic continental)

12 600

6 790

8 300

4 460

Norway - Northern part of Spitsbergen (defined by the Treaty of 1920)

400

220

400

220

Canada

 

74 300

40 070

19 700

10 640

USA

 

3 200

1 740

3 200

1740

Denmark (Greenland)

21 700

11700

16 000

8 670

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The data shows that Canada has the longest Arctic coastline if Arctic islands are taken into account; and Russia has the longest continental coastline in the Arctic Ocean.

 

 

2.   Universal level of regulation of economic activities in the Arctic Ocean

 

The necessity to improve legal regulation of economic activities in the Arctic Ocean before possible melting permanent ice there was suggested in a number of research papers.

The expansion of economic activity under conditions of environmental change poses new challenges for the entire Arctic region and the world. Access to open water across the Arctic Ocean is awakening interest from the energy, shipping, fishing, and tourism industries. Each of these globally important commercial activities, if not properly regulated, poses risks that together will be multiplied in the confined Arctic Ocean. Due to rapidly changing conditions and to inadequate baseline data regarding the dynamics of Arctic marine ecosystems, many vulnerabilities and potential consequences of anthropogenic impacts are poorly understood or unknown[12].

The Ilulissat declaration adopted at the Arctic Ocean conference in May 2008, provides that an extensive international legal framework applies to the Arctic Ocean. In fact, the Declaration doesnt provide for any new rules, but reflects the current state of the contemporary International Law, referring to the relevant rights and obligations of the Arctic coastal states.

The contemporary International law consists of general international law and local rules[13]. The first component – covered by the term general international law – means rules and principles that are applicable to a large number of states, primarily, on the basis of customary international law (multilateral treaties, especially, codifying conventions are also covered by this term)[14].

The second component is sometimes called regional international law[15], but such a substitution seems to be not legally precise: while the term local rules in the context of international law obviously covers rules both of regional and bilateral level of regulation, it is difficult the assert that the term regional international law stands for bilateral international agreements and other forms of bilateral regulation. Well consider this component later – in para 3.

As for the universal level of regulation of economic activities in the Arctic Ocean, the first and most important component is provided by the applicable international customary law. The latter means:

A. Continuous legal practice by the Arctic States (including their legislative and administrative practice);

B. Responses thereto (tacit agreements; acquiescence; the absence of relevant persistent objector, etc).

This customary law component of global level of regulation is linked primarily with bilateral and regional continuous treaty practice of each of the Arctic States and its national legislation practice applicable to the Arctic and relevant responses thereto on the part of other states.

The second component of the universal level of regulation of economic activities in the Arctic is represented by applicable universal treaties: Geneva Maritime Conventions 1958; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS, 1982); Environmental Protection conventions; Shipping and Marine Environment Conventions, etc. It is interesting to see which of these legally significant conventions have entered into force for each of the Arctic coastal state (Table 2).

 

Table 2. Universal treaties applicable to the economic activities in the Arctic Ocean: participation of the Arctic coastal states

 

 

Titles of universal treaties

 

 

Canada

 

Russia

 

Denmark

(Greenland)

 

Norway

 

USA (Alaska)

I.       Geneva Maritime Conventions, 1958

 

1.1.   Convention on the High Seas

 

 

 

1.2.   Convention on the Continental Shelf

 

 

1.3.   Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas

 

1.4.   Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone

 

 

 

II.     UNCLOS 1982, Implementation Agreement 1994

 

2.1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS 1982)

 

2.2. Agreement (1994) relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982

 

 

III.  Environmental Treaties

 

3.1.   United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992 (Climate Convention, 1992)

 

3.2.   Kyoto Protocol of the 1997 to the Climate Convention, 1992

 

 

3.3.   Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992

 

 

3.4.   Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, 1979

 

 

3.5.   Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 1985

 

 

3.6.   Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1987

 

 

 

IV.  Shipping and Marine Environment

 

4.1.  International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships, 1973

 

4.2.  Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships, 1973

 

 

4.3.   Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters, 1972

 

4.4.   Protocol of 1996 to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters, 1972

 

 

 

V.             Fisheries

United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS, 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Signed

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

acceded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

Acceded, entered into force

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Acceded, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

-

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

acceded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Approved, entered into force

 

Approved, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

Acceded, entered into force

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

acceded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

Acceded, entered into force

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

Acceded, entered into force

 

-

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

acceded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acceded

 

 

 

Acceded, entered into force

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Signed

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

Approved, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

Acceded, entered into force

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

Signed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ratified, entered into force

 

 

 

As we can see from the Table 2:

-     There are some universal conventions, which have entered into force for all five Arctic coastal states: Convention on the Continental shelf, 1958, for example;

-     There is no reason to overestimate the role of UNCLOS 1982 in the legal regime of the Arctic Ocean bed, because one of the Arctic coastal states is a party neither to UNCLOS 1982 nor to the UNCLOS Implementation Agreement 1994.

So, judging by this universal treaties level of regulation all Arctic Ocean bed may be delimited according to the Convention on the Continental shelf, 1958 between Arctic coastal states on the basis of combined effects of rules provided in articles 1 and 6. It is true that UNCLOS 1982 shall prevail, as between States Parties, over the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea 1958 – art. 311(1) of UNCLOS 1982. But that rule is not applicable to relations of each of the four Arctic coastal states with the fifth – USA.

As confirmed by a number of documents, UNCLOS provisions on the Area (the ocean floor beyond the continental shelf as the common heritage of mankind) and on its boundaries are not considered by the USA as a part of customary international law. These provisions are not part of regional international legal regime of the Arctic Ocean, formed long before UNCLOS was adopted. Message from the President of the United States transmitting UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Annexes, 1982, and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention 1994, provides, in particular: The objections of the United States and other industrialized States to Part XI were that: it established a structure for administering the seabed mining regime that did not accord industrialized States influence in the regime commensurate with their interests; it incorporated economic principles inconsistent with free market philosophy; and its specific provisions created numerous problems from an economic and commercial policy perspective that would have impeded access by the United States and other industrialized countries to the resources of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. In this message the US President states that the Implementation Agreement of 1994 fundamentally changes the deep seabed mining regime of the Convention[16]. But the Senate did not react positively and did not give its consent to USA accession to the 1982 Convention and to ratification of the Agreement. As some USA legislators put it there was no reason to have signed this badly flawed treaty in the 1980s and even less justification today. In 1980, when it was clear that the United States and its allies would not sign the treaty, Congress enacted the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. This statute regulates the mining activities of U.S. citizens in the seabed beyond the jurisdiction of any country. And: The benefits to the United States by ratifying the treaty as it stands now are, at best, minimal. The United States already has taken the position that all the other parts of the Law of the Sea Treaty represent customary international law and we act accordingly[17].

Since the USA is not a party to UNCLOS and since Part XI thereof (the Area) and Art. 76 (new limits of the continental shelf) are not rules of customary international law, the American continental shelf is unlimited – according to one of the rules of the Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources[18] of submarine areas. So the recent announcement by the US side that the US continental shelf extends to more than 900 miles to the north of Alaska (without respecting relevant UNCLOS mechanisms) is in full accordance with art. 1 of the Convention on Continental Shelf, 1958, is within the US Arctic sector and is consequently quite legitimate.

In these circumstances the global level of regulation of economic activities in the Arctic Ocean seems to be differentiated. Such regulation of shipping, fisheries and protection of the environment in the Arctic High Seas are already in demand. In contrast to it, the Area and the relevant global mechanism (of common heritage of mankind) in the Arctic Ocean cannot be formed in the present circumstances, so global level of regulation of utilization of mineral resources on the Arctic Ocean bed (provided by Part XI of UNCLOS and Implementation Agreement 1994) turns out to be inapplicable today. For these purposes regional, bilateral and national levels of regulation are more appropriate within contemporary legal and political environment.

 

3.   Regional, Bilateral and National Levels of Regulation

 

As was already indicated, the international customary law applicable to the Arctic has been formed over the centuries through regional, bilateral and national level. Continuous legal practice of Arctic States in the Arctic region and the responses thereto (including tacit agreement or acquiescence) by other States (not only Arctic States, certainly) are the core of this customary law. In this context, important legal factors to be taken into account are: a) legislative and treaty practice of Tsarist Russia, the USSR and the Russian Federation in the Arctic; b) legislative and treaty practice of Canada in the Arctic; c) relevant legislative and treaty practice of other Arctic coastal states; and d) acquiescence or consent with such practices on behalf of the majority of States from the 15th to 20th centuries, and the absence of relevant persistent objectors during this period[19].

According to the Convention between Great Britain and Russia, 1825, the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of Russia agreed upon the line of demarcation between the Possessions of the Parties in America. Of contemporary legal interest are the provisions of the Convention on the Northern part of this demarcation line – the Meridian Line of the 141st Degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean (art. III of the 1825 Convention). It was the first sector boundary line in the Arctic ever established by the legal act. Years later another bilateral treaty used a sector line – along a meridian in the direction to the North Pole. In accordance to the Convention Ceding Alaska, 1867, His Majesty the Emperor of Russia has agreed to cede to the United States all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth. Again, the Northern part of the line delimitating USA and Russia possessions in the Arctic is described in the Convention as the meridian line (sector line): the meridian which passes midway between the islands of Krusenstern and the island of Ratmanoff and proceeds due North, without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean (art. I). In spite of this rather brave terminology (without limitations), no State protested against 1867 Convention. These sector (meridian) lines are certainly not contemporary state boundaries of Canada, USA or Russia. Nor are they – without additional agreement of the relevant states – lines delimiting continental shelves of the three Arctic coastal states: because in 1825 and in 1867 there was no institute of continental shelf in International Law. Still, the sector boundaries in the Arctic established by the 1825 UK-Russia Convention and by the 1867 USA-Russia Convention remain today in force as part of contemporary international law.

It is notable that the International Law Commission (ILC), while considering in 1950 the concepts of continental shelf and regime of the high seas, observed:

Ds 1916, l'ide du plateau continental, c'est--dire la prolongation sous-marine du territoire continental, apparat de deux cts diffrents, en Espagne et en Russie. En Espagne l'ocanographe Odon de Buen insiste sur la ncessit d'un largissement de la zone territoriale, de manire у englober la totalit du plateau continental; il justifie son opinion en faisant remarquer que le plateau continental est la zone d'lection des principales espces comestibles. Le 29 septembre de la mme anne le Gouvernement imprial russe met une dclaration, notifiant aux autres gouvernements, qu'il considre comme faisant partie intgrante de l'Empire les les Henriette, Jeanette, Bennett, Herald et Ouyedinenie, qui forment avec les les Nouvelle-Sibrie, Wrangel et autres, situes prs de la cte asiatique de l'Empire, une extension vers le nord de la plate-forme continentale de la Sibrie. Cette thse fut reprise par le Gouvernement de lUnion des Rpubliques socialistes sovitiques dans un mmorandum du 4 novembre 1924[20].

 

And indeed as noted in academic writings and confirmed by documents, the Arctic legislation of Russia can be traced back to the Ukases (Orders) of the Tsars of Russia of the 15th–16th centuries[21], the decree of the Russian Senate of 1821[22], and the Note issued by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1916[23], to mention but a few sources[24]. The boundaries of the Russian Arctic sector were legally established in 1926 under national legislation[25], thus confirming the eastern boundary defined in the Convention on the Cession of Alaska concluded between the USA and Russia in 1867[26].

The political will of Canada as it relates to the Arctic sector can be traced back to 1907, and the sector boundaries were legally established in 1925[27]. Years later, the ILC referred in a positive light to the Canadian legal position: Le snateur canadien Poirier, pre du systme des secteurs, disait devant le Snat d'Ottawa le 20 Janvier 1907: Nous n'avons qu' ouvrir notre gographie pour voir que la chose est toute simple ... Cette mthode carterait les difficults et elle supprimerait les causes de diffrends ou de conflits entre les Etats intresss. Tout Etat limitrophe des rgions polaires tendra simplement ses possessions jusqu'au ple nord[28].

According to Canadian and Russian legislation[29], such a sector is formed by an Arctic States coast (bordering the Arctic Ocean) and two meridians of longitude drawn from the easternmost point and from the westernmost point of such a coast to the North Pole. Within such a triangular sector, an Arctic State may regard as its territory, all islands and lands. The first term – islands – also includes rocks. The term lands, according to some authors, includes submerged and ice-covered lands[30]. Other authors reject such a broad interpretation, saying that the word lands in Canadian and Russian legislation means islands[31]. It is asserted that within such an Arctic sector, the Arctic coastal State has jurisdiction with regard to the protection of the fragile Arctic environment[32]. The majority of contemporary authors recognize that the limits of the Arctic sectors established by Canadian and Russian laws reflect, according to the customary legal order, the boundaries of primary interests and responsibilities of the Arctic coastal States for the rule of law in the Arctic Ocean through their national legislative approaches[33].

It has thus been correctly stated by prominent authors that:

In the Arctic, the law of the sea for the polar north has been applied through national approaches. That is, the government of each Arctic State considers, adopts and implements through its own legislative means those legal rules and norms that it feels best serve its national interests within the context of its polar seas. Thus, as concepts and principles of ocean law emerged and evolved throughout the 20th century, they were adopted by each Arctic State, in its own way, to its own northern waters[34].

It is asserted in a number of academic writings that there has been no documentary evidence of protests on behalf of the world community against such legislative approaches adopted by Russia and Canada, as manifested from the 16th to the early 20th century[35]. This has caused some later authors to consider that the relevant opinio juris has been formed[36].

Today regional level of regulation of economic activities in the Arctic Ocean is softly linked with bilateral and national regulation and with relevant institutional structures such as the Arctic Council and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council and other[37].

 

 

Conclusions.

The Arctic region and Arctic Ocean is an object of global regional, bilateral and national regulation. Historically, global level of regulation of economic activity in the Arctic Ocean was underdeveloped. Severe climate conditions, fragile environment and other natural peculiarities of the Arctic region were better taken into account at regional, bilateral and national levels of regulation of economic and other activities here by Arctic states. With possible melting arctic ice in future, however, there are possibilities that global level of regulation will be better developed for shipping, fisheries and environmental purposes in the Arctic High Seas.



[1] Wolfrum R. The Arctic in the context of International Law. – In New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region. Eds. Witschel, Winkelmann, Tiroch, Wolfrum. Berlin. 2010. P. 37

[2] Ilulissat Declaration, Arctic Ocean Conference, Greenland, 27-29 May 2008 <http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/Ilulissat-declaration.pdf> (16 June 2009).

[3] Taksoe-Jensen P. An International Governance Framework for the Arctic: Challenges for International Public Law. In: New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region... P. 147-155. Heidar T.H. The Legal Regime of the Arctic Ocean. In: New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region. P. 157-162. Winkler T. An International Governance Framework for the Arctic: Challenges for International Public Law – A Danish Perspective. In: New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region... P. 163-167.

[4] Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean. University of Cambridge, UK. 13-15 October 2010. 264 pp.

[5] Lakhtin V.L. Prava na severnie poljarnie prostranstva (Rights over the arctic regions). Moscow, 1928 (in Russian). P. 16.

[6] Hartingh F. Les conceptions sovietiques du droit de la mer. Preface par A. Gros. Paris. 1960. P. 38. Mezhdunarodnoje pravo (International Law). Preface by S. Lavrov. Ed. A. Vylegzhanin. Moscow, 2010 (in Russian). P. 182. We do not think that the prominent author from Cambridge will insist on his understanding of the Arctic as a legal definition: The Arctic region is of some strategic importance, constituting as it does a vast expanse of inhospitable territory between North America and Russia. – Shaw M. N. International Law. Sixth Edition. Cambridge University Press. 2008. P. 534.

[7] Rothwell and Joyner The Polar Oceans and the Law of the Sea in Elferink and Rothwell (eds) The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction (Nijhoff. The Hague 2001). P. 5. Even if we accept this approach, its necessary to add at least one more sea in this list: between Chukchi Sea and Laptev Sea there is East Siberian Sea.

[8] Fife R.E. The Call for Good Governance in the Arctic Ocean – the Legal Framework and Development of Policies to Meet Rising Challenges and Emerging Opportunities. – In: New Chances and New Responsibilities in the Arctic Region. P. 224-225.

[9] Berkman P.A. Environmental Security of the Arctic Ocean. Promoting Cooperation and Preventing Conflict. Whitehall Paper 75. Routledge Journals. 2010. P. 12.

[10] I.C.J. Reports 1969. P. 51.

[11] Source: Paper presented to the Scientific Council of the Marine Colleague of the Government of the RF by the Russian State Hydrometeorological Institute, St.-Petersburg, 2009.

[12] Arctic Transform . Arctic Environmental Governance Workshop. Cambridge. 23 January 2009. P. 1.

[13] Tunkin G. I. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law), Moscow, 1982. P. 59 (in Russian).

[14] Malanczuk Akerhursts Modern Introduction to International Law (7th revised ed. Routledge London, 2003). P. 2. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) underlines the necessity to refer primarily to customary international law and directs to read the text of conventions with caution. Even general conventions, codifying conventions must be seen against the background of customary international law and interpreted in its light (I.C.J. Reports 1984. P. 290-291).

[15] Ibid.

[16] 103rd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Treaty Document 103-39. US Government Printing Office. Washington, 1994.

[17] Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Gulf of Mexico and the Outer Continental Shelf Hearing on Law of the Sea Treaty and Reauthorization of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act Serial No 103-97. 26 April 1994. US Government Printing Office. Washington, 1994. P. 3.

[18] Art. 1 Convention on the Continental Shelf (n 31).

[19] Evans International Law (2nd edn OUP Oxford 2006). P. 115.

[20] UN ILC Documents of the Second Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly (1950) vol II UNYBILC 49.

[21] Ukases (Orders) of the Tsars of Russia of the 15th-16th centuries. Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obshestva. Tom 38. St. Petersburg, 1883 (in Russian) 112.

[22] Decree of the Russian Senate of 1821. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoi Imperii, 1875, Tom XXXVII (in Russian) 903.

[23] Note issued by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1916. Pravitelstvenniy Vestnik. St. Petersburg, 1916 (in Russian) 183.

[24] Durdenevskiy Problema pravovogo regime poliarnih oblastei (Problem of Legal Regime of Polar Regions). Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Review of Moscow State University) 7 (1950); the western boundary of the Canadian Arctic sector is formed by the Convention of 1825 concluded between Russia (for Alaska) and Great Britain (for the Dominion of Canada) (Convention between Great Britain and Russia, [signed at St. Petersburgh, 28 (16) February 1825]). The text of the convention does not say that this boundary extends to the North Pole though it may be interpreted in this way: dans son prolongement jusquՈ la Mer Glaciale These conventional words are stressed in the Russian translation of Hyde International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States (2nd edn Little, Brown and Company Boston 1947); Russian translation: Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, kak ono ponimaetsja i primeniaetsja Soedinennimi Shtatami (Inostr. lit. Moscow 1950) 60-61.

[25] Postanovlenie Prezidiuma Centralnogo Ispolnitelnogo Komiteta SSSR (Decree of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR) of 15 April 1926, printed in Durdenevskiy (ed) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (izbrannie dokumenti) (International Law [selected sources]) part 1 (Voennoe izdatelstvo Moskwa 1955) (in Russian) 210; the boundary line provided by the Convention of 1867 (n 40) extends to the North without limits: remont en ligne direct, sans limitation, vers le Nord jusquՈ ce quelle se perde dans la mer Glaciale(Art. 1).

[26] Convention Ceding Alaska between Russia and the United States (signed 30 March 1867, entered into force 20 June 1867) (1867) 134 CTS 332.

[27] Pharand Legal Status of the Arctic Regions in Kindred (ed) International Law: Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada (6th edn Edmont Montgomery Publications Toronto 2000) 424-25.

[28] UN ILC Documents of the Second Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly. P. 107.

[29] According to Canadian (The Northwest Game Act, 1906; The Northwest Territories Act, 1925) and Russian legislation (Postanovlenie Prezidiuma Centralnogo Ispolnitelnogo Komiteta SSSR ot 15 aprelia 1926), such a sector is formed by an Arctic States coast (bordering the Arctic Ocean) and two meridians of longitude drawn from the easternmost point and from the westernmost point of such a coast to the North Pole.

[30] Barsegov Arktika: interesi Rossii i mezhdunarodnie uslovia ih realizatsii (The Arctic: Russian Interests and International Environment) (Nauka Moskwa 2002) (in Russian) 10-15.

[31] Kolodkin Arktika (The Arctic) in Kuznetsov and Tuzmuhamedov (eds) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) (Norma Moskwa 2007) (in Russian) 608-611.

[32] Nikolaev and Bunik Mezhdunarodnopravovie obosnovsnia prav Kanadi v arkticheskom sektore (International Legal Base of Canadas Rights in its Arctic Sector) Moscow Journal of International Law 65 (2007) (in Russian) 12-14.

[33] Melkov (ed) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) (RIOR Moskwa 2009) (in Russian) 420-423.

[34] Rothwell and Joyner The Polar Oceans and the Law of the Sea in Elferink and Rothwell (eds) The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction (Nijhoff The Hague 2001). P. 1.

[35] Palamarchuk Pravovoi regim morei sovetskogo sektora Arktiki (Legal Regime of Seas in the Soviet Sector of the Arctic) in Ushakov (ed) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodniy pravoporjadok (International Law and International Legal Order) (IGPAN Moskwa 1981) (in Russian) 111-131.

[36] Barsegov. Op. cit. P. 24-31.

[37] Common Concern for the Arctic. Copenhagen. ANP 2008: 750. 166 p. Byers M. Who owns the Arctic? D&M Publishers INC. 2010. P. 15-16, 125. The European Union and the Arctic. Policies and actions. Copenhagen. ANP 2008: 729. P. 17-25.