Establishing Rights over the Arctic Ocean

Kevin Krajick provides a comprehensive description of issues related to the development of extended continental shelves by the five coastal states that surround the Arctic Ocean in his article “Race to plumb the frigid depths” (Special Section on Polar Science: News, 16 Mar., p. 1525). However, he addresses certain topics in a way that could foster wrong or misleading impressions, and it is important to set the record straight. Krajick suggests that the Russian Federation is seeking to extend sovereign rights beyond 200 nautical miles over an unjustifiably large sector of the central Arctic Ocean. Three points need to be noted here: 1) In the process of defining maritime boundaries, a well-established principle is that the extent of a coastal state's offshore jurisdiction is largely determined by the length and the configuration of its coastline ([1][1]). Since nearly half of the Arctic Ocean's coastline fringes Russia's northern territory, it does not seem unwarranted for that country, in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Article 76, to pursue an extended continental shelf that encompasses a significant portion of the sea floor beyond 200 nautical miles. 2) Many observers and commentators appear to have missed the proviso (perhaps because it appears in Russian and in fine print at the bottom of a key document) that the proposed Russian outer limits are “subject to more precise determination through negotiations [with neighbouring States],” according to a translation posted on the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Web site ([2][2]). This indicates a readiness to seek accommodations with other coastal states in the region. 3) Independent studies have considered the continental shelf implications for all coastal states that border the Arctic Ocean ([3][3], [4][4]). Derived from data sets that differed from those used by Russian investigators, the outcomes of these studies have tended to mirror the outer limits that were proposed by Russia in its 2001 submission to UNCLOS. On a more personal level, the article contains statements attributed to me that appear to disparage the Russian continental shelf submission. I did not suggest that the Russian initiative lacked merit; in fact, recent studies have further substantiated the Russian case ([5][5]). I did not claim to speak for the Canadian Polar Commission, as implied by Krajick; the views expressed during the course of our exchanges were mine alone. 1. 1.[↵][6]United Nations, Handbook on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries (United Nations, New York, 2000). 2. 2.[↵][7]United Nations, Website of the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), Legends to the attached maps, {[www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs\_new/submissions\_files/rus01/RUS\_page5\_Legend.pdf][8]} (2001). 3. 3.[↵][9]1. R. Macnab, 2. P. Neto, 3. R van de Poll , Cooperative preparations for determining the outer limit of the juridical continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean: a model for regional collaboration in other parts of the world ocean?, Proceedings of a Continental Shelf Workshop hosted by the Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI), Buenos Aires, 13 to 15 November 2000 (reprinted with permission in Boundary and Security Bulletin, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 86-96, International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University, NC, Spring 2001). 4. 4.[↵][10]1. P. Neto, 2. R. van de Poll , Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 2((no. 1)), 37 (2001). [OpenUrl][11] 5. 5.[↵][12]1. V. D. Kaminsky, 2. V. A. Poselov, 3. V. Y. Glebovsky, 4. A. V. Zayonchek, 5. V. V. Butsenko , Eos Trans. AGU 86((no. 52)), (2005)Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstr. T12C-06. # {#article-title-2} In the article “Race to plumb the frigid depths” (Special Section on Polar Science: News, 16 Mar., p. 1525), Kevin Krajick gives a rather negative view on the work our Russian colleagues are doing on the topic of territorial claims to underwater rights in the Arctic Ocean. To understand the kind of work being done to fulfil the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, readers should be aware that the way data are being interpreted inevitably will be in the national interest of the country doing the interpretation, which will then be countered by the UN's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). It is a legal process. There is no given line on the sea floor marking the “end of the natural prolongation of the land mass.” The problem about the process lies elsewhere: in the secrecy in dealings between a submitting nation and CLCS. In the article, I am quoted as agreeing with the statement (made by Arthur Grantz): “They're [the Russians] under great pressure. Their government gave them a lot of money, and it expects them to come up with a certain result.” However, I did not express agreement with this point of view when talking to Kevin Krajick. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #ref-5 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text [8]: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01/RUS_page5_Legend.pdf [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3. in text [10]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4. in text [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DInt.%2BHydrogr.%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D2%26rft.issue%253D%2528no.%2B1%2529%26rft.spage%253D37%26rft.atitle%253DINT%2BHYDROGR%2BREV%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [12]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5. in text

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.