1011. 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.
Д.К. Лабин
Ключевые слова: Арктика, международное право, международное морское право, континентальный шельф, международный район морского дна.
Dmitry K. Labin, Doctor of Law, professor of International Law of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University), attorney at law, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: d.labin@inno.mgimo.ru
ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE APPROACH TO ESTABLISH THE RUSSIAN EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF CONSTRAINT LINES IN THE ARCTIC
(IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR RUSSIA'S INTERESTS IN THE APPLICATION OF ART. 76 OF THE UN 1982 CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA)
The article deals with issues regarding the improvement of the approach to establish the Russian extended continental shelf constraint lines in the Arctic. There is no doubt that the Arctic Oceanhas in recent years played a growing economic and strategic role. Currently large reserves of natural resources are estimated in the Arctic subsoil. Besides hydrocarbon resources, Arctic shelves are rich of the deposits of solid minerals, including ore metals. Some experts assess that Russia might have the largest volumes of the Arctic's undiscovered hydrocarbon crude. This article analyzes the results of the examination presented by the Commission on limits of the continental shelf in regard of Russia's submission on the entitlement of the Russian Federation to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Barents, Bering, and Okhotsk sea of the Arctic Ocean. The article also provides recommendations for improvement of the legal position in the preparation of the amended application in respect of the delimitation of the Russian continental shelf beyond the 200-mile zones in the Barents and Bering Sea of the Arctic ocean. In conclusion, the author states the necessity of taking into account the positions of other Arctic States, which have never self-refrained their rights on their continental shelves, as well as non-internationalization of the seabed and subsoil of the Arctic ocean.
Key words: Arctic, international law, international law of the sea, the continental shelf, the international seabed area.
There is no doubt that the Arctic Ocean has in recent years been playing increasing economic and strategic role. Accordingly, it also increases the influence of States with direct access to the Northern cap of the world including Russia, Canada, USA, Norway and Denmark through its island of Greenland.
It is confirmed that the Arctic is a major natural resource reserve for the above mentioned five Arctic States which is maintained for future generations. According to expert estimatesthe largest hydrocarbon resources available in the
World Oceanare concentrated in the Arctic with total volume of approximately 180 billion metric tons: 66 billion metric tons (37%) is located in the Asian part of the Arctic while another 54 billion metric tons (30%) of hydrocarbons might be found in areas between the pole and North America [1].
Besides hydrocarbon resources (not only oil and gas, but also the hydrates), Arctic shelves are rich of the deposits of solid minerals, including ore metals. Some experts assess that Russia might have the largest volumes of the Arctic's undiscovered hydrocarbon crude [2] (see the table 1 belov).
Table 1
Arctic's undiscovered hydrocarbon crude by country shares (%)
Country Oil Natural gas
Russia 41 70
US (Alaska) 28 14
Denmark (Greenland) 18 8
Canada 9 4
Norway 4 4
Source: Lindholt L., Glomsred S. The Role of the Arctic in Future Global Petroleum Supply // Statistics Norway, Research Department. Discussion Papers № 645. February 2011.
It is assumed that the major undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves in the Arctic (including 90% of natural gas reserves in the Russia-controlled area) are concentrated on the continental shelf.
The Arctic region is unquestionable important for the above mentioned States from the defence and energy security perspective. Moreover, today in accordance with the main global trend toward greening of international legal consciousness the Arctic region becomes to play an extremely important biospheric role, including its influence in the formation of the Earth climate, and maintenance of the global ecological balance. Low temperatures, polar nights, icebound by perennial ice fields of the greater part of water spaces - these natural features have been taken into account in the law of the Arctic. As it stated in the Nuuk Declaration on environment and development in the Arctic, dated 12th May, 2011, that rapidly changing circumstances, in particular the changing climate, have increased the challenges and opportunities facing the Arctic in both volume and complexity [3].
By the present time the rights of the Arctic States on the ice bound waters and submarine subsoil thereof within 200 nautical miles of respecting zones have been confirmed by the conventional and customary international law. The hard issue now is how to justify their claims on natural resources which may be found in the subsoil of the high-latitude Arctic areas located at a distance beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines.
fl.K. Ha6uH
One opportunity is provided by the article 76, paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of the 10th of December 1982 (UNCLOS) [4]. It should be noted that the Russian Federation signed the Convention of the United Nations the Law of the Sea 1982 on 10 December 1982 (then the USSR) and ratified it on 26 February 1997, the Convention entered into force for the Russian Federation on 11 April 1997.
Amongst the Arctic States Russia being a Party to the Convention was the first which made a submission through the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to the article 76 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. The submission was made on the 20th December 2001. The submission contained the information on the proposed outer limits of the continental shelf of the Russian Federation beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured with respect of four areas including the Barents Sea, the Bering Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk and the Central Arctic Ocean.
Soon after the examination of the data and information submitted by Russian Federation the recommendations of the Commission followed which contained the results of the examination with particular reference to the question of the entitlement of the Russian Federation to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, as well as whether the formulae and the constraints had been applied as required by article 76 of the Convention. The Commission presented its recommendations to the Russian Federation regarding the above mentioned four areas relating to the continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles contained in the submission.
In the case of the Barents and Bering seas, the Commission recommended to the Russian Federation, upon entry into force of the maritime boundary delimitation agreements with Norway in the Barents Sea, and with the United States of America in the Bering Sea, to transmit to the Commission the charts and coordinates of the delimitation lines as they would represent the outer limits of the continental shelf of the Russian Federation extending beyond 200 nautical miles in the Barents Sea and the Bering Sea respectively [5, paras. 38-41].
Regarding the Sea of Okhotsk, the Commission recommended to the Russian Federation to make a well-documented partial submission for its extended continental shelf in the northern part of that sea. Following that specific recommendation Russia made its partial submission regarding the above mentioned sea two year ago (February 2013) and succeeded [6]. The Commission agreed that the base of the continental slope around the continental margin of the Sea of Okhotsk has been correctly identified by the Russian Federation. The Commission also agreed with the general location of the FOS points determined by the Russian Federation [6].
We can definitely welcome the success of Russia in the latter case, but the precedent is unfortunately not helpful in regards to the rest of cases. It can be simply explained.
First of all, the Partial Revised Submission did not take into account the issues related to delimitation of maritime boundaries between Japan and the Russian Federation in the southern Sea of Okhotsk.
Secondly, it was quite fair since the Enclave is indeed part of the submerged prolongation of the land masses of the Russian Federation that surround the Sea of Okhotsk.
And after all, the Sea of Okhotsk makes no part to the Arctic Ocean.
Before making the next submission regarding the establishment of the Russian Extended Continental Shelf Constraint Lines in the Arctic, it would be reasonable to modify the legal position in order to minimize the negative consequences for Russia's interests in the application of the article 76 of the Convention of the Law of the Sea. Some initiatives have been made by a number of Russian research centers, including the MGIMO-University, and the Federal authorities, including the Federation Council, the Ministry of economic development, the Ministry of regional development, the Scientific-expert Council of the Maritime Collegiums of the Government of the Russian Federation, with the support of the presidential Administration the Russian Federation in order to suggest ideas to improve the legal position of Russia in this regard.
The ideas proposed by the above said institutions may be briefly summarized as they follow. The main priority should be given tothe restoration of rights to the designated area "A" which was unfairly lost. While submitting for the extension of its continental shelf in the Arctic the applicants unreasonably self-restrained the Russian continental shelf in the designated area "A" of approximately 300.000 square km in favor of the international Seabed Area - the common heritage of mankind. Aforesaid may be illustrated in the picture which is made by the author (see the picture 1 belov).
It is worth mentioning that the article 76 para 10 provides for a priority of article 83 (delimitation between States with opposite and adjacent). Unfortu-
fl.K. Ha6uH
nately when the first Russian submission was made in 2001 there were no clear understanding among the competent Russian officials which international law should have been applied in that complex case.
Whereas for many decades the Russian legislation has been providing for the special rights within its Arctic sector which were tacitly recognized by other States, the Ministry of environment in collaboration with the Ministry of foreign Affairs of Russia prepared the submission in 2001on the assertion that the Arctic Ocean should be treated as the Indian or any other ocean. And accordingly, the UNCLOS 1982 should be applied to the high-latitude Arctic areas. It should definitely include the application of the Part XI thereof on the "Area" (the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction) and the 1994 Agreement of Implementation of the Part XI.
Such a position contradicts further developments of Russian legislation in this regard as well. For example, the document adopted by the Russian President later on 18th September 2008 namely "The Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the Period till 2020 and Further Perspective" might be referred to. The Principles makes reference to general international law but not specifically to UNCLOS provisions. It also should be taken into consideration that one of the chief goals set in the Ilulissat declaration dated 2008 and signed by the Five Arctic States was the blockage of any "new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean" [7]. Moreover, the Declaration did not refer to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in this regard.
Both Russian Ministries should have taken into account that the Arctic as well as the Antarctic were not covered by Third Conference in 1982 since the leaders of at least three Arctic States namely Canada, the USA and the USSR appeared to have dismissed certain aspects of the Arctic regime having reached an unspoken agreement that the path of 'common heritage followed in the case of the Antarctic Treaty was not one they wished to follow' [8; 9]. This point of view is shared by a number of Russian academic writers [10; 11; 12].
Now it is suggested to base the submission on the wide international law framework including bilateral and regional treaties Russia is party to, as well as customary international law.
The latter element is to demonstrate that such a practice is accepted by States as law or opinio juris of States. It should be stressed that the States which are party to UNCLOS, either Russia or Canada, are free to extend its rules and provisions to the ice bound Arctic areas including subsoil thereof. As it was decided by the International Court of Justice in the case of delimitation of the Maritime Boundaries in the Gulf of Maine Area (dispute between Canada and the USA):
"There is ... nothing to prevent the parties to a convention ... from extending the rules contained in that convention to aspects which it is less likely that customary international law might govern. In that event, however, the text of the convention must be read with caution ... [o]nly "general conventions", including, inter alia, the conventions codifying the law of the sea to which the two States are parties, can be considered . Such conventions must, moreover, be
seen against the background of customary international law and interpreted in its light" [13].
Following the above named legal position of the ICJ one can make an important conclusion that the legal regime of the Arctic and the Arctic Ocean is not covered merely by the international law of the sea and in any case not only by the UNCLOS [9, supra note 9].
It is true that the legal regime of the Arctic has developed long before the adoption of the 1982 Convention which is based primarily on the customary international law and bilateral treaties.
As it regards Russia and the USA, the delimitation of the adjacent continental shelves beyond 200-nm between those States was reached by the bilateral Agreement dated 1990, without application of the article 76 of the 1982 Convention and without submission to the Commission. Well indeed, the article 76 provides that information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured shall be submitted by the coastal State to the Commission.
But, first, this article only sets out the procedure for determining the boundary between the continental shelf of the coastal state and the international seabed area. As it was mentioned above the "Principles of State policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic..." does not require it, but instead it requires only to form Russian boundaries in the continental shelf.
Secondly, the international seabed area is a new institute of the law of the sea, represented by the certain provisions regarding "the common heritage of mankind". They are not applicable to relations with the United States that are not party to the Convention 1982.
Thirdly, article 76 of the Convention is applicable only insofar as it does not affect the matter of the delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts. But this is exactly the case for Russia and the USA.
And finally, currently those provisions of the 1982 Convention on the Area of "the common heritage of mankind" make no part of customary international law.
To conclude, the legal position regarding the specified area "A" in the Western part of the Russian Arctic continental shelf needs to be modified. In order to improve the legal position of the Russian Federation in relation to the boundaries of its continental shelf in the Arctic, the following considerations should be taken into account:
(a) self-refraining Russia's rights on the continental shelf shall not be exercised in this region as so far as other countries have never performed such actions regarding their rights on their continental shelves there; and
b) The seabed and subsoil thereof in the Arctic Ocean shall not be globally internationalized and "the common heritage of mankind" provisions shall not be applied to the region.
The practice of other States, the Norwegian experience of "partial submission" in particular, shall be studied before preparing next Russian submission.
Д.К. Лабин
And finally the issue regarding the Russian Arctic shelf boundaries to the North from the northernmost point of the boundary, provided by the Russian-Norwegian agreement 2010, is to negotiated in consultations with Canada and Denmark, rather thenjust only with Norway.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Preliminary Geospatial Analysis of Arctic Ocean Hydrocarbon Resources Publication of Pacific : under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 [Electronic resource] / Northwest National Laboratory for United States Department Of Energy ; P. E. Long, S. K. Wurstner, E. C. Sullivan, H. T. Schaef, D. J. Bradley. -PNNL-17922. - Access: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/tech nical_reports/PNNL-17922.pdf.
2. Lindholt, L. The Role of the Arctic in Future Global Petroleum Supply [Electronic resource] / L. Lindholt, S. Glomsrod // Statistics Norway, Research Department. Discussion Papers. - 2011, February. - № 645. - Access: https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp645.pdf.
3. Nuuk Declaration On the occasion of the Seventh Ministerial Meeting of The Arctic Council, 12 May 2011, Nuuk, Greenland [Electronic resource]. -Access: http://www.arcticobserving.org/images/pdf/nuuk_declaration.pdf
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. Oceans and Law of the Sea : Report of the Secretary-General : addendum : UN. doc. A/57/57/Add.1 [Electronic resource] // General Assembly. 57th session. Agenda item 25 (a). Oceans and the law of the sea, 8 October 2002. - Access: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UND0C/GEN/N02/629/28/PDF/N026 2928.pdf?OpenElement.
6. Summary Of Recommendations Of The Commission On The Limits Of The Continental Shelf In Regard To The Partial Revised Submission Made By The Russian Federation In Respect Of The Sea Of Okhotsk On 28 February 2013 [Electronic resource] // Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. -Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01_rev13/2 014_03_13_COM_REC_RUS_Summary.pdf.
7. The Ilulissat Declaration. Arctic Ocean Governance Conference, Ilulissat, Greenland, 27-28 May 2008 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf.
8. Morison, A. Coming In From the Cold War : Arctic Security in the Emerging Global Climate : View from Canada // Ocean Development and International Law. - 1992. - Vol. 23. - P. 39-57.
9. Vylegzhanin, A. N. Developing International Law Teachings for Preventing Inter-State Disaccords in the Arctic Ocean // Heidelberg Journal of International Law. - 2009. - Vol. 69, no. 3. - P. 669-681.
10. Перелет, Р. А. Проблемы обеспечения экологической безопасности и управляемости в Арктике : (экономические и правовые аспекты) /
Р. А. Перелет, А. В. Кукушкина, М. А. Травников // Российский ежегодник международного права. - 2000. - С. 153-169.
11. Международное право и национальные интересы Российской Федерации / отв. ред. А. А. Ковалев, Б. Л. Зимненко. - М. : Восток - Запад, 2008. - 469 с.
12. Пушкарева, Э. Ф. В МГИМО-Университете МИД РОССИИ проведена международная дискуссия (круглый стол) по теме «Недра Арктики и международное право» / Э. Ф. Пушкарева, А. Ю. Скуратова // Московский журнал международного права. - 2008. - № 3. - С. 283-287.
13. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada / United States of America) : Judgment of 12 October 1984 [Electronic resource] // ICJ Rep. - Access: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php7sum =346&code=cigm&p1 =3 &p2=3 &case=67&k=6f&p3=5.
REFERENCES
1. Preliminary Geospatial Analysis of Arctic Ocean Hydrocarbon Resources Publication of Pacific: under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. PNNL-17922. Northwest National Laboratory for United States Department оf Energy; Long P.E., Wurstner S.K., Sullivan E.C., Schaef H.T., Bradley D.J. Available at: http://www.pnl.gov/main /publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17922.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
2. Lindholt L., Glomsrad S. The Role of the Arctic in Future Global Petroleum Supply. Statistics Norway, Research Department. Discussion Papers, 2011, February, no. 645. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp645.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
3. Nuuk Declaration On the occasion of the Seventh Ministerial Meeting of The Arctic Council, 12 May 2011, Nuuk, Greenland. Available at: http://www.arcti cobserving.org/images/pdf/nuuk_declaration.pdf (accessed 15 April 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. Oceans and Law of the Sea: Report of the Secretary-General: addendum: UN. doc. A/57/57/Add.1. General Assembly. 57th session. Agenda item 25 (a). Oceans and the law of the sea, 8 October 2002. Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/629/28/PDF/N0262928.pdf7OpenElement (accessed 20 April 2015).
6. Summary Of Recommendations Of The Commission On The Limits Of The Continental Shelf In Regard To The Partial Revised Submission Made By The Russian Federation In Respect Of The Sea Of Okhotsk On 28 February 2013. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new /submissions_files/rus01_rev 13Z2014_03_13_COM_REC_RUS_Summary.pdf (accessed 21 April 2015).
7. The Ilulissat Declaration. Arctic Ocean Governance Conference, Ilulissat, Greenland, 27-28 May 2008. Available at: http://www.oceanlaw.org/down loads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf (accessed 21 April 2015).
8. Morison A. Coming In From the Cold War: Arctic Security in the Emerging Global Climate: View from Canada. Ocean Development and International Law, 1992, vol. 23, pp. 39-57.
fl.K. ^a6MH
9 Vylegzhanin A.N. Developing International Law Teachings for Preventing InterState Disaccords in the Arctic Ocean. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 2009, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 669-681.
10. Perelet R.A., Kukushkina A.V., Travnikov M.A. Problemy obespecheniya ekologicheskoi bezopasnosti i upravlyaemosti v Arktike: (ekonomicheskie i pravovye aspekty) [Problems of Ensuring Ecological Security and Management in the Arctic (Economic and Legal Aspects)]. Rossiiskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2000, pp.153-169.
11. Kovalev A.A., Zimnenko B.L., eds. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i natsional'nye interesy Rossiiskoi Federatsii [International Law and National Interest of Russia]. Moscow: Vostok - Zapad Publ., 2008. 469 p.
12. Pushkareva E.F., Skuratova A.Yu. V MGIMO-Universitete MID ROSSII provedena mezhdunarodnaya diskussiya (kruglyi stol) po teme «Nedra Arktiki i mezhdunarodnoe pravo» [International Discussion (Round table) «Arctic Subsoil and International Law» held the MGIMO-University MFA Russia]. Moscow Journal of International Law, 2008, no. 3, pp. 283-287.
13. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada / United States of America): Judgment of 12 October 1984. ICJ Rep. Available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=346&code=cigm&p1=3&p2=3&case=67 &k=6f&p3=5 (accessed 22 April 2015).
