15Курилов Владимир Иванович, доктор юридических наук, профессор, директор Юридической школы Дальневосточного федерального университета, проректор по международным отношениям Дальневосточного федерального университета, Владивосток, Россия. E-mail:law@dvfu.ru
ПРАВОВОЕ РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЕ РОССИЙСКОГО АРКТИЧЕСКОГО СЕКТОРА
В настоящий момент есть много свидетельств того, что Арктика широко изучалась и использовалась русскими на протяжении многих веков. В настоящее время большое количество источников национального и международного права может быть использовано для определения правового режима российского арктического сектора. Статья описывает связи между различными источниками и дает прогноз на будущее развитие ситуации. Кроме того, автор подчеркивает ключевые факторы, влияющие на вопрос правового режима Арктики. Одной из ключевых детерминант является повышение интенсивности «гонки за ресурсами» в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе для таких стран, как Япония, Республика Корея и Китай. Эти участники пытаются активно влиять на правовой режим Арктики. В этом тексте доказано, что, хотя Россия может ограничить участие государств, не являющихся арктическими в регионе, она опирается на принцип взаимной выгоды в отношениях с такими странами, потому что это помогает избежать усиления напряженности, но тем не менее правовой режим должен защищать интересы России.
Ключевые слова: Арктика, российский арктический сектор, Конвенция ООН по морскому праву 1982, правовой режим.
Vladimir I. Kurilov, SJD, LL.D., Professor, Director&Dean of School of Law of Far Eastern Federal University, Vice President for International Affairs of Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: law@dvfu.ru
LEGAL REGULATION OF THE RUSSIAN SECTOR OF ARCTIC
Plenty of evidences demonstrate that the Arctic has been extensively explored and exploited by the Russian people for centuries. Nowadays a lot of sources of domestic and international law can be applied to define legal regime of Russian arctic sector. Article tries to recover relations between various sources and predict future development of situation. Moreover author underlines key factors of Arctic legal regime issue. One of key factors is increasing race for the resources in Asia Pacific Rim for such countries as Japan, South Korea, and China because they try to influence on legal regime of Arctic. In this text is proved that although Russia is able to restrict participation of non Arctic states in the region,
it relies on principal of mutual benefit in relations with such countries because it helps to avoid increasing tensions but it should be based on interests of Russia.
Key words: Arctic, the Russian Arctic sector, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, the legal regime.
Historical Introduction
Russians have a continuous tradition of Arctic Seas Navigation. Coast-dwellers and other Russians using tributaries of the Siberian rivers began navigation along coasts of the Arctic seas and through it in the middle of 16th century. In 1648 a group of navigators led by tradesman Fedor Popov and Cossack, under chieftain Simen Dejnev. These explorers using "koches"1 navigated around the Chukchi Peninsula and reached the Pacific Ocean. These journeys were not separate expeditions but use of the Arctic Ocean for navigation.
In 1686-1688 a merchant expedition under the direction of Ivan Tolstouhov navigated around the Taimyr Peninsula from the West to the East. Unfortunately, this expedition was lost, but evidence of its achievements has since been discovered. In 1712 pioneers Mercusha Vageen and Ykov Permyakov first discovered Big Lyahovsky Island. This expedition went on to initiate the opening and development of all New Siberian Islands.
In 1725, Peter the Great created an enterprise, which gave the North Pacific its present borders and shaped its land and peoples. Over the course of 140 years, Russia sent more than 200 ships into the North Pacific to serve its colony in North America. From 1790 to 1840, Russian voyagers succeeded in charting the Arctic coast of Siberia, eventually reaching beyond Point Barrow in North America.
The inclusion to Russia of polar expanses northward of 54"40' north and west of 141" west was verified by the Russo-American Treaty (1824) and the Anglo-Russian Convention (1825) [1, p. 158-168]. Soviet authorities, after they established power, placed a strong emphasis on the exploration of the Arctic. In 1921 Lenin signed a decree about the creation of a floating marine research institute. Article 1 of the Decree proclaimed "For detailed and systematic research of north seas and coasts that have utmost importance to state it must establish under the People's commissariat of enlightenment the Floating marine research institute including biological, hydrological, meteorological, geological-mineralogical departments". Statement of 15th April 1926 defined that all territories of land and islands in Russian sector of the Arctic under Soviet jurisdiction.
Plenty of evidences demonstrate that the Arctic has been extensively explored and exploited by the Russian people for centuries. Russia has undoubtedly made a substantial contribution to the exploration and survival of the Arctic; it seems that it is only Russia undertake its jurisdiction in the Arctic sector of Russia.
1 The Koch was a special type of small one or two mast wooden sailing ships designed and used in Russia fortranspolar voyages in ice conditions of the Arctic seas, popular among the Pomors.
Sources
Russia had some bilateral agreements concerning boundaries and regimes of the Arctic waters. First, the negotiations between the Soviet Union and Norway concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones (EEZ) in the Barents Sea were in progress since 1974, relied on the sectorial concept [2, p. 29-35]. The Soviet Union underlined the recognition of the sector concept as a special circumstance for the region, considering that the delimitation line should coincide with the western limit of the Soviet sector, i.e., the meridian 32°04' 35" E. longitude. As result it was finished in 2010 by signing of the agreement of Russia with Norway to divide the long-disputed area in the Barents Sea into two almost equal parts.
Second famous bilateral treaty is between USSR and the United States. Those two parties signed an agreement concerning the delimitation between them of EEZ and the continental in the Chukchi Sea and Bering Sea (1990) [3]. The delimitation line in the Chukchi Sea relied on the eastern limit of the Soviet sector.
Preamble of this treaty proclaimed that agreement based on Russian- American convention of 1967. Article 1 of this agreement proclaimed that the parties agreed that the line described as the 'western limit' in Article 1 of the 1867 Convention, as recognized in Article 2 of this agreement, is the sea boundary between the United States and the Soviet Union".
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982 [4]. This piece of legislation has significant influence on legal regimes of all sea areas. Law of the Sea has special provision that concerns legal regimes. Article 234 of UNCLOS declares that coastal States have the right to adopt and apply laws and regulations without discrimination for the prevention, reduction, and control of marine pollution from vessels in areas covered by ice within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where usually serious climatic obstacles and the presence of ice create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment. It needs that ice covers such areas most of year and the enacting of laws and regulations should be based on appropriate scientific evidences.
As mentioned some authors Article 234 is a special provision negotiated mainly between Canada, USSR and the USA, giving additional powers to coastal states in marine regions with ice-covered waters not enjoyed by coastal states of other marine regions [5]. According this article coastal of Arctic is able to establish more severe rule in terms of environment preservation and prevention of hazards to navigation and there is no necessity to approve such regulations in International Maritime Organization.
Another act concerning Russian sector issue is «The Fundamentals of a State Policy of the Russian Federation in Arctic regions till 2020 and beyond». Government adopted this new Arctic strategy in September 2008. It defines features of the Arctic region and their relationship to Russian policy. These features include:
• extremely dangerous environment and climatic conditions including all-year covered and drift ice in the Arctic seas.
• localnature of industrial and economic development of the territories and low density of the population
• remoteness from the populated areas, lack of resources and dependence of economical activity and survival of the population on supply of fuel, food and essential goods from other regions of Russia.
• sensitiveness of ecological systems determining biological balance and climate of the Earth, and their dependence on man's impact.
All Russian policy in the Arctic is established according to these characteristics of the region and the directions of development are related with, in the first place, extreme environmental and climatic conditions, a low stability of ecological systems. The Fundamentals also defines the main goals and strategic priorities of Russian policy course in the Arctic (III section) and enumeratemain tasks andarrangements to undertake public policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic(IV section). Among them are the delimitation of sea areas in the Arctic Ocean and, the support of mutually beneficial presence at the Spitsbergen archipelago (Article 7),and preparation for the enactment of legal texts of the Russian Federation to specify geographic borders of the Russian Arctic (Article 9).
As described above, Russian Arctic sector law sources has complicated structure and interactions, right of Russia to adopt special rules doesn't raise doubts because it based on historic title, UNCLOS and numerous agreements and recognized international customs. Russia just needs to formalize its right by adoption of domestic legislation.
Further Development
At present there is considerable oil and gas activity in the Arctic being carried out in the Canada, the USA, Norway, and Russia. Those states are producers of oil and gas in this region [6]. For the most of those countries oil and gas production is sufficient part of state budget and it have intentions to develop new fields and sources.
Next year's key factor will be increasing interest of non-Arctic states which have own claims sometimes different from legal regime adopted by Arctic states. For instance, China exercised six Arctic expeditions in 1999, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2014. The highlights of the expedition will be analysis of the Arctic's marine hydrology and meteorology, marine geology, as well as marine life and ecology [7]. In some sense it opposites to principal that only coastal state have exclusive rights to provide marine research.
China's growing interest and Russia's main role in the Arctic make it of paramount importance to study their relationship. If Russia's approach towards China were to become strategic, it would mean increased Chinese investments, activity and interest in the Russian Arctic [8]. The Arctic has recently become an issue on the Russo-Chinese, and possibly Russo-Japanese security agenda [9, c. 303-320]. One of the most interesting issue for China is Northern Sea Route and
it even recognize right of Russia on compulsory icebreaker pilotage and dispute now mostly in terms of price for this service.
Other key factor is increasing race for the resources in Asia Pacific Rim. For such countries as Japan, South Korea, and China, which are all dramatically, depend on external resources, especially oil and gas it is very significant to have alternative sources different from unstable Middle Asian. Moreover, enlargement of demand on oil and gas will have a major impact on policy of mentioned countries in the Arctic. According to our opinion Russia should rely on mutually beneficial basis in cooperation with non-Arctic actors. It will weaken tensions and lead to sustainable development of Russian Arctic region. But before the Northern Sea Route can be used on a large scale for transit by shipping along its passages, huge investments are required on infrastructure [10].
But not only Asian states have interest in Arctic, heightened awareness of the importance of new Arctic sea lanes, and of the potential accessibility of Arctic hydrocarbon and mineral resources, has sensitized the European Commission, and preeminently Germany among the member states, to any suggestion of exclusion from the governance of this vast marine area [11]. It shows us that existing legal regime will be under pressure of other states that have lack of right and access to Arctic.
Conclusion
Nowadays Arctic legal regime becomes the most "hot" topic of international politics, economics and law, and Russia, as main actor of Arctic region should pay attention to this very demanded issue. Russia has long history and historical right on the Arctic that is supported by various evidences and long state practice. Russia has right to establish own regime of Russia sector in Arctic due to UNCLOS provisions and other international law sources. Although Russia is able to restrict participation of non Arctic states in the region, it should rely on principal of mutual benefit in relations with such countries because it helps to avoid increasing tensions but it should be based on interests of Russia.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Kolodkin, A. L. The legal regime of the Soviet Arctic: major issues / A. L. Kolodkin, M. E. Volosov // Marine Policy. - 1990. - № 14. - P. 158-168.
2. Timtshenko, L. The Russian Arctic Sectoral Concept: Past And Present // Arctic. - 1997, March. - Vol. 50, № 1. - P. 29-35.
3. Соглашение между Союзом Советских Социалистических Республик и Соединенными Штатами Америки о разграничении морских пространств, Вашингтон, 1 июня 1990 г. [Электронный ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http://www.lawmix.ru/abrolaw/14166.
4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea : done at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994 // United States. Treaty Series. - 1994. - Vol. 1833, 1-31363. - P. 397-581.
5. Aldo, C. Climate Change and the Prospects of Increased Navigationin the Canadian Arctic // WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs - 2007. - Vol. 6, no 2. -P. 193-205.
6. Harsem, T. Factors influencing future oil and gas prospects in the Arctic / T. Harsem, A. Eide, K. Heen // Energy Policy. - 2011. - Vol. 39, Iss. 12. -P.8037-8045.
7. Chinese icebreaker heads for 6th Arctic expedition [Electronic resource] // China daily. - Access: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-07/11/conten t_17734743.htm.
8. R0seth, T. Russia's China Policy in the Arctic // Strategic Analysis. -2014. - Vol. 38, Iss. 6. - P. 841-859.
9. Kim, Y. The Arctic: A new issue on Asia's security agenda / Y. Kim, S. Blank // Korean Journal of Defense Analysis. - 2011. - Vol. 23, Iss. 3. -P. 303-320.
10. Ho Joshua. The implications of Arctic sea ice decline on shipping // Marine Policy. - 2010. - No. 34. - P. 713-715.
11. Blunden, M. Geopolitics and the Northern Sea Route // International Affairs. - 2012. - Vol. 88, Iss. 1, January. - P. 115-129.
REFERENCES
1. Kolodkin A.L., Volosov M.E. The legal regime of the Soviet Arctic: major issues/Marine Policy, 1990, no. 14, pp. 158-168.
2. Timtchenko L. The Russian Arctic Sectoral Concept: Past And Present. Arctic, 1997, vol. 50, no. 1 (March), pp. 29-35.
3. Agreement of delimitation of sea areas between the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics and United States of America (1990). Available at: http://www.lawmix.ru/abrolaw/14166 (acessed 14April 2015).
4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: done at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994. United States. Treaty Series, 1994, vol. 1833, 1-31363, pp. 397-581.
5. Chircop A. Climate Change and the Prospects of Increased Navigationin the Canadian Arctic. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 2007, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.193-205.
6. Harsem T., Eide A., Heen K. Factors influencing future oil and gas prospects in the Arctic. Energy Policy, 2011, vol. 39, pp. 8037-8045.
7. Chinese icebreaker heads for 6th Arctic expedition. China daily. Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-07/11/content_17734743.htm (acessed 14April 2015).
8. R0seth T. Russia's China Policy in the Arctic . Strategic Analysis, 2014, vol. 38, iss., 2 November, pp. 841-859.
9. Kim Y., Blank S. The Arctic: A new issue on Asia's security agenda. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 2011, vol. 23, iss. 3, pp. 303-320.
10. Ho Joshua. The implications of Arctic sea ice decline on shipping. Marine Policy, 2010, no. 34, pp. 713-715.
11. Blunden M. Geopolitics and the Northern Sea Route. International Affairs. 2012, vol. 88, iss. 1, January, pp. 115-129.
Лабин Дмитрий Константинович, доктор юридических наук, адвокат, профессор кафедры международного права Московского государственного института международных отношений (Университета) Министерства иностранных дел России, г. Москва, Россия. E-mail: d.labin@inno.mgimo.ru
О МОДЕРНИЗАЦИИ ПРАВОВОГО ПОДХОДА К УСТАНОВЛЕНИЮ ГРАНИЦ РОССИЙСКОГО КОНТИНЕНТАЛЬНОГО ШЕЛЬФА В АРКТИКЕ
(В ЦЕЛЯХ МИНИМИЗАЦИИ НЕГАТИВНЫХ ПОСЛЕДСТВИЙ ДЛЯ РОССИЙСКИХ ИНТЕРЕСОВ В СВЯЗИ С ЗАЯВКОЙ В СООТВЕТСТВИИ СО СТАТЬЕЙ 76 КОНВЕНЦИИ ООН ПО МОРСКОМУ ПРАВУ)
В статье рассматриваются вопросы, касающиеся совершенствования подхода к установлению границ российского континентального шельфа в Арктике. Нет никаких сомнений в том, что Северный Ледовитый океан в последние годы играет возрастающую экономическую и стратегическую роль. Сегодня в недрах арктического шельфа залегают колоссальные запасы природных ресурсов. Помимо углеводородных ресурсов арктический шельф богат месторождениями твердых полезных ископаемых, включая руды металлов. По экспертным оценкам, в пределах суверенных прав России в арктических недрах могут быть сосредоточены наибольшие объемы неразведанных запасов углеводородного сырья. В настоящей статье анализируются результаты рассмотрения конвенционной комиссией по границам континентального шельфа заявки России о разграничении континентального шельфа и района морского дня за пределами 200 морских миль, исчисляемых от исходных линий, от которых измеряются границы территориального моря в акваториях Баренцева, Берингова, Охотского морей Северного Ледовитого океана. В статье также даются рекомендации по усовершенствованию правовой позиции при подготовке дополненной заявки в отношении разграничения российского континентального шельфа за пределами 200-мильной зоны в акваториях Баренцева, Берингова морей Северного Ледовитого океана. В заключение автор делает вывод о необходимости учёта позиции других приарктических государств, которые не заявляли о самоограничении своих суверенных прав на континентальный шельф, а также недопущении интернационализации морского дна и недр Северного Ледовитого океана.
