No need to monkey with Arctic regional rivals insist
29th May 2008
There is no need for a new international legal regime to regulate activities in the Arctic, a five nation panel of Arctic nations declared last week in the Greenland town of Disko, conveying the message that they could be trusted to look after the region themselves once their conflicting claims to the Arctic Continental shelf had been settled under the 1982 Law of the Sea.
Green groups expressed predictable outrage at the meeting, arguing that all claims to the Arctic, like those to the Antarctic, should be put on ice in the interests of humanity and that the retreat of the ice-cap should not be seen as a trigger for the exploitation of greater quantities of climate change accelerating natural resources.
However, there is no obligation in international law to create an exception for the Arctic. In addition to paving the way for greater drilling, a leaner, meaner icecap could significantly reduce shipping costs – particularly in the summer.
Of the five nations present at the meeting one is significantly absent from the signatory list to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States has prevaricated on the grounds that there might be security implications but has given every indication that it may yet have signed up by the end of the year.
Russia caused a stir in 2007 by taking a titanium flag to the ocean floor beneath the North Pole – in a coup described by a spokesperson for Russia’s ministry of foreign affairs as “being on a par to the moon-landing.” The stunt was decried by Arctic neighbours for its “medieval” approach to acquisition, but the Russian foreign ministry denied that it was staking a claim.
In 2001, the Russians submitted their continental shelf claim to the International Commission on the Law of the Continental Shelf – and has been asked to submit more evidence. It bases its Arctic claim on the extension of the Lomonosov Ridge, a prolongation of the continental shelf which, the country argues extends as far as the North Pole.
However, in their opening statement at Iliullisat the Russians said that while the country’s Russian shoreline extended to some 20,000 kilometres, their government understood the “transboundary” characteristics of the region and that “a solution” will require a “unification of efforts” by the states concerned. For the moment then, the Pole itself will remain international territory under the authority of the International Seabed Authority – but activity in the Arctic regions is already hotting up.
Links:
International Seabed Authority
Ilulissat Declaration
There is no need for a new international legal regime to regulate activities in the Arctic, a five nation panel of Arctic nations declared last week in the Greenland town of Disko, conveying the message that they could be trusted to look after the region themselves once their conflicting claims to the Arctic Continental shelf had been settled under the 1982 Law of the Sea.
Green groups expressed predictable outrage at the meeting, arguing that all claims to the Arctic, like those to the Antarctic, should be put on ice in the interests of humanity and that the retreat of the ice-cap should not be seen as a trigger for the exploitation of greater quantities of climate change accelerating natural resources.
However, there is no obligation in international law to create an exception for the Arctic. In addition to paving the way for greater drilling, a leaner, meaner icecap could significantly reduce shipping costs – particularly in the summer.
Of the five nations present at the meeting one is significantly absent from the signatory list to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States has prevaricated on the grounds that there might be security implications but has given every indication that it may yet have signed up by the end of the year.
Russia caused a stir in 2007 by taking a titanium flag to the ocean floor beneath the North Pole – in a coup described by a spokesperson for Russia’s ministry of foreign affairs as “being on a par to the moon-landing.” The stunt was decried by Arctic neighbours for its “medieval” approach to acquisition, but the Russian foreign ministry denied that it was staking a claim.
In 2001, the Russians submitted their continental shelf claim to the International Commission on the Law of the Continental Shelf – and has been asked to submit more evidence. It bases its Arctic claim on the extension of the Lomonosov Ridge, a prolongation of the continental shelf which, the country argues extends as far as the North Pole.
However, in their opening statement at Iliullisat the Russians said that while the country’s Russian shoreline extended to some 20,000 kilometres, their government understood the “transboundary” characteristics of the region and that “a solution” will require a “unification of efforts” by the states concerned. For the moment then, the Pole itself will remain international territory under the authority of the International Seabed Authority – but activity in the Arctic regions is already hotting up.
Links:
International Seabed Authority
Ilulissat Declaration