11МЕЖДУНАРОДНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ
В АРКТИКЕ INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES IN THE ARCTIC
Тед Л. МакДорман, магистр права, профессор юридического факультета университета Виктории, Британская Колумбия, Канада. E-mail: [email protected]
КОНТИНЕНТАЛЬНЫЙ ШЕЛЬФ ЗА ПРЕДЕЛАМИ 200 МОРСКИХ МИЛЬ В СЕВЕРНОМ ЛЕДОВИТОМ ОКЕАНЕ
Предмет данной статьи - морское дно в центральной области Арктического бассейна, прилегающее к территории пяти государств - Канады, Дании/Гренландии, Норвегии, Российской Федерации, США. Точнее, в рамках настоящего исследования преподносится взгляд на действия, предпринятые граничащими государствами относительно шельфа за пределами 200 морских миль.
Несмотря на постоянные заявления СМИ и некоторых комментаторов, отношения между пятью арктическими государствами относительно морских обязательств, требований в открытом море и, в частности, континентального шельфа за пределами 200 морских миль, стабильны, прозрачны и основаны на взаимопонимании. Эта точка зрения поддерживается тремя чертами отношений арктических государств.
Во-первых, существуют четкий протокол достигнутого соглашения по вопросу перекрывающихся морских территорий в пределах 200 морских миль и два соглашения, применимых за пределами 200 морских миль.
Во-вторых, в мае 2008 г. в Илулисатской Декларации пять государств заявили, что: «Морское право содержит значимые права и обязанности относительно установления внешних границ континентального шельфа» и, таким образом, государства передали на рассмотрение «этого правового механизма и установленного порядка разрешения споров все возможные споры по перекрывающимся зонам» [1]. Международно-правовой механизм для континентального шельфа за пределами 200 морских миль установлен Конвенцией ООН по морскому праву 1982 года [2]. Четыре из пяти арктических государств являются участниками Конвенции (Канада, Дания/Гренландия, Норвегия, Российская Федерация), за исключением только США.
В соответствии с этим Российская Федерация (2001) [3], Норвегия (2006) [4], Дания (2014) [5] сделали представления в Комиссию по границам континентального шельфа относительно континентального шельфа за пределами 200 морских миль в центральной части Северного Ледовитого океана. Норвегия получила рекомендации от Комиссии в 2009 году [6].
Российская Федерация получила рекомендации в 2002 г., в частности касательно центральной части Арктики, в которой Комиссия рекомендовала «России сделать повторное представление, ... основанное на сведениях, указанных в рекомендации» [7]. В октябре 2014 г. было сделано сообщение, согласно которому Российская Федерация в марте 2015 г. обратится к Комиссии с пересмотренным представлением [8].
Канада в декабре 2013 г. прияла решение не подавать в Комиссию представление о предполагаемых внешних границах континентального шельфа в Северном Ледовитом океане [10], сделав представление только для Атлантического побережья [11]. Сообщения СМИ утверждают, что опасения в данном случае заключаются в том, что проектное представление внешних границ шельфа не включало в себя северный полюс [10]. Тем не менее, Канада предоставила Комиссии Предварительное Информационное письмо со своим намерением сделать представление относительно Северного Ледовитого океана в будущем [12].
США, не будучи стороной в Конвенции ООН по морскому праву, все же выказали свое намерение следовать критериям статьи 76 указанной Конвенции в отношении внешних границ своего континентального шельфа за пределами 200 морских миль [13].
В-третьих, все три государства, сделавшие представление, определенно вступили во взаимодействие с потенциально заинтересованными соседями, чтобы избежать конфронтаций и неожиданностей относительно континентального шельфа за пределами 200 морских миль.
Сказанное выше не означает, что проблемы между приарктическими государствами в их двусторонних и многосторонних переговорах касательно определения национальной юрисдикции на континентальном шельфе за пределами 200 морских миль отсутствуют. Тем не менее, все свидетельствует о том, что приарктические государства удержат свои разногласия от эскалации в серьезный конфликт.
Ключевые слова: международное морское право, Арктика, континентальный шельф, территориальные споры, комиссия по границам континентального шельфа.
Ted L. MacDorman, LLM, Full professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
THE CONTINENTAL SHELF BEYOND 200 NMILES THE ARCTIC OCEAN
The focus of this contribution is the seafloor in the central Arctic Ocean Basin adjacent to five States - Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States. More specifically, this paper will look at the actions by the bordering States respecting the shelf area beyond 200 nm.
Despite the constant refrain in the media and from some commentators, relations among the five Arctic States respecting maritime boundaries, offshore claims and, in particular, the shelf area beyond 200 nm is stable, transparent and based on mutual understanding. This view is supported by three features of the Arctic States' relations.
First, as detailed below (Section 2.0), there is strong record of attaining agreement on the division of overlapping sea areas within 200 nm and two agreements that apply beyond 200 nm.
Second, in the May 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, the five States endorsed that: "the law of the sea provides important rights and obligations concerning the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf' and that the States were commitment to "this legal framework and to the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims" [1, at paragraph 3].
The international legal framework for the shelf area beyond 200 nm is anchored in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the LOS Convention) [2, p. 397]. Four of the five States bordering the central Arctic Ocean are parties to the LOS Convention (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway and the Russian Federation), with only the United States not a party.
Consistent with this, the Russian Federation (2001) [3], Norway (2006) [4, supra note 3], Denmark (2014) [5, supra note 3], have made submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf respected shelf areas beyond 200 nm in the central Arctic Ocean. In 2009 Norway received recommendations from the Commission [6, supra note 3]. In 2002, the Russian Federation received recommendations from the Commission, in particular regarding the central Arctic Ocean, in which the Commission recommended "that the Russian Federation make a revised submission ... based on the findings contained in the recommendations" [7, at para. 39]. In October 2014, it was reported that the Russian Federation will in March 2015 be engaging the Commission with a revised submission [8; 9].
Canada, apparently at the last minute, opted in December 2013 not to make a submission to the Commission regarding its proposed continental shelf outer
3
limits in the Arctic Ocean [10 ], making only a submission for the Atlantic coast [11, supra note 3]. The media reports indicate that the concern was that in the draft submission the proposed outer limits did not capture the North Pole4. Canada did provide to the Commission a Preliminary Information notice of its intention to make a submission respecting the Arctic Ocean in the future [12, supra note 3].
3 See: p. 1: "Stephen Harper has ordered government bureaucrats back to the drawing board to craft a more expansive international claim for seabed riches in the Arctic after the proposed submission they showed him failed to include the geographic North Pole ..."
4 Harper orders new draft, supra note 10.
The United States, not being a party to the LOS Convention, nevertheless has indicated its intention to follow the criteria in Article 76 of the LOS Convention regarding its outer limit of shelf areas beyond 200 nm5 [13].
Third, as detailed below (Section 5.0), the three submitting States have clearly engaged with the potentially affected neighbors in order to avoid confrontation and surprises respecting outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
The above is not to say that there are not challenges ahead for the Arctic Ocean States in their bilateral and multilateral discussions regarding their areas of national jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. However, the indications are positive that the Arctic States will keep these issues from cascading into serious conflict.
Keywords: International maritime law, Arctic, continental shelf, territorial issues, Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
1.0. A Strong Record in the Region of Delimitation Agreements [14]
The first offshore boundary agreement among the five Arctic Ocean States was the 1957 Norwegian - Russian Federation Agreement [15], which delineated the territorial sea and continental shelf boundary between Norway and the Russian Federation for a distance of 24.35 nm adjacent to the Varanger Fjord. The 1957 Agreement was essentially replaced by a 2007 Agreement that refers to and utilizes the 1957 line extending it to a total distance of 39.41 nm that delimits the territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf in the area [16; 17].
The establishment by Norway and Russia of 200 nm zones in the 1970s resulted in an overlapping dispute in the Barents Sea of approximately 155,000 sq. kms and a second area of overlap in the Arctic Ocean of approximately 20,000 sq. kms [18, p. 185]. In 1978, the two States reached a provisional agreement on fisheries (subsequently renewed annually) for their disputed area in the southern Barents Sea creating the so-called Grey Zone [19, p. 6-7; p. 51-57].
In 2010 the two States announced a maritime boundary agreement for the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean areas6 [20, p. 1; 21]. To the north of Svalbard and Franz Josefs Lands, the maritime boundary delineates areas of continental shelf beyond 200 nm. Respecting the Loophole in the Barents Sea, the 2010 Agreement also delineates the shelf beyond 200 nm. The 2010 Agreement fully resolves all the overlapping claim Arctic areas between Norway and the Russian Federation. It has been promoted as a model for the resolution of overlapping
5 A 1987 U.S. document attached to a memorandum states that the "United States has exercised and shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over its continental shelf in accordance with and to the full extent permitted by international law as reflected in Article 76." United States, memorandum dated 17 November 1987 and attached document, "United States Policy Governing the Continental Shelf of the United States of America," Cumulative Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1981-1988, at pp. 1878-1879.
6 The close relationship on fishing is not disturbed with the structures of cooperative arrangements from the 1970s continued.
claims in the Arctic Ocean - "if little Norway ... can negotiate a win-win boundary agreement with powerful Russia ., there is no reason for any other Arctic boundary dispute to remain unresolved" [22, p. 46; 23].
The 1990 United States - Soviet Russia Agreement [24; 25; 26], establishes the boundary for the territorial sea and the 200 nm zones of the two States in the Arctic Ocean.The key phrase is that line proceeds "as far as permitted under international law [24, supra note 21, Article 2]". Thus, the United States - Russia boundary divides the parties' continental shelf areas seaward of their 200 nm limits should the legal continental shelf of both Statesextend beyond 200 nm.
The 1990 Agreement is a complete boundary for the two States in the central Arctic Ocean. While the Agreement is not in force as the Russian Federation has not formally ratified it, the Agreement is abided as a result of the two States having exchange notes on same day the Treaty was signed wherein it is stated that "pending the entry into force of the Agreement, the two Governments agree to abide by the terms of that Agreement as of June 15, 1990" [25, p. 454].
In the southern central Arctic Ocean area, in 2006 Denmark/Greenland and Norway (Svalbard) completed a continental shelf and fisheries zone maritime boundary agreement out to 200 nm for the area between Greenland and Svalbard [26].
Finally, Canada and Denmark/Greenland have a continental shelf boundary from Davis Strait in the south to the Lincoln Sea in the north [27]. The boundary terminates in the Robeson Channel before entering the Arctic Ocean. There is a small gap in this maritime boundary as a result of the sovereignty dispute over Hans Island [28], which is the only disputed land territory in the Arctic region. In 2012, Canada and Denmark/Greenland announced an agreement in principle on a maritime boundary out to 200 nm in the Lincoln Sea [29].
The announcement indicated that equidistance was applied and that technical adjustments were to be made to the 1973 Agreement. A final agreement has not been made public. The 2014 Denmark submission to the Commission denotes an equidistance line on the map of the area north of Greenland and Canada [5, supra note 5, maps].
The missing piece for offshore zones out to 200 nm in the central Arctic Ocean is between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea where there is approximately 6,250 square nautical miles of overlapping claimed territorial sea and 200 nm zones [30].
Canada has delineated its 200 nm mile zone in the area using the 141st west meridian [31], apparently relying on Article III of the 1825 Russia-Great Britain Treaty [32], which provides for a boundary between the two States along the 141st meridian "in its prolongation as far as the Frozen ocean" ("dans son prolongementjusqu'a la MerGlaciale," the authentic language of the Treaty is French). The U.S. position is that maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea is an equidistance line [33].
It is clear that the legal continental shelf extends beyond 200 nm adjacent to the known overlapping claims of the two States. Both States have engaged
in research activities respecting the mapping of the seafloor. Much of this research has been done cooperatively since 2008 when it was agreed that Canadian and U.S. icebreakers and research teams would work together in activities designed to map seafloor areas north of the Beaufort Sea [34].
The curiosity is that if Canada maintains its position respecting the 141st west meridian and the United States maintains its equidistance position beyond 200 nm that the Canadian position favours the United States and the U.S. position favours Canada [22, p. 59-62].
In early 2010, there were media reports in Canada of the possibility of Beaufort Sea maritime boundary negotiations with the United States [35]. In November 2010, Canada's then Foreign Minister noted that no negotiations would take place until the seafloor mapping was completed [36].
Within 200 nm, the Arctic States have completed an impressive number of maritime boundary agreements with there being little to suggest that, when the time comes, this regional momentum will not continue.
2.0. The Law of the Sea Convention
During the negotiation of the LOS Convention there was a necessity to provide for a definitive outer limit of the continental shelf where it extended beyond 200nm since the International Seabed Authority and the Common Heritage of Mankind were to apply to the mineral resources of the seafloor beyond national jurisdiction. The outcome that was agreed upon between those States (for example, Canada, the United States, Norway and then Soviet Russia) which asserted that international law recognized coastal State authority over the shelf beyond 200 nm and those States seeking to limit coastal State continental shelf authority to 200 nm involved: (i) the adoption of a complex formula for determining the outer limit of a State's continental shelf beyond 200 nm [2] ; (ii) the creation of the Commission to assist States in applying the complex formula; and (iii) the acceptance of revenue sharing with the international community respecting mineral resources exploited by a coastal State from the continental margin area beyond 200 nm9.
The Article 76 criteria and the Commission explicitly only deal with the outer limit of a State's continental shelf beyond 200 nm, thus States are not restricted by the LOS Convention in exercising jurisdiction over shelf areas unquestionably within any reasonable calculation of the Article 76 criteria outer limits. Consistent with this, in the Bay of Bengal Case, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (TLOS) stated that a coastal State's "entitlement to the continental shelf ... does not require the establishment of outer limits" [37].
7 See: U.S. State Department document dealing with "recent information on data collection and analysis" respecting the continental shelf, excerpted in Roach and Smith, supra note 13.
8 LOS Convention, supra note 2, Article 76. See the appendix to this paper for a concise overvuiew.
9 The revenue sharing provision is in LOS Convention, supra note 2, Article 82 and will not be discussed.
State practice supports this. Canada, for example, has long exercised national jurisdiction over hydrocarbon development and sedentary species beyond 200 nm including the prosecution of a U.S. fishing vessel for illegally harvesting sedentary species beyond 200 nm10.
As well, there are a number of bilateral maritime boundary agreements that deal with the shelf area beyond 200 nm entered into by States that had not made submissions to the Commission. For example, the 2004 Australia-New Zealand Agreement [38] divided large areas of shelf beyond 200 nm just prior to Australia's 2004 submission, subsequently followed in 2006 by New Zealand's submission11.
Article 76(8) of the LOS Convention provides that a coastal State is to submit information supporting its proposed outer limit of its "legal" continental shelf to the Commission.
The Commission is to consider the submitted material and make recommendations to the submitting State regarding the information received and the relevant Article 76 criteria. The Commission does not have the legal authority to determine or impose its views respecting the location of the outer limit of the continental margin on a coastal State. In other words, the Commission is not a court, nor does it represent the interests of the International Seabed Authority.
It is the coastal State, and not the Commission, that determines the outer limit
12
of its continental margin beyond 200nm [39; 40; 41] . Article 76(8) further provides that the "limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of [Commission] ... recommendations shall be final and binding" [42].
3.0. The Three Submissions, Canada's Preliminary Information and the United States
3.1. Russian Federation
The 2001 Russian submission portrays an outer limit as a straight line projection of the maritime boundary agreed upon in the 1990 U.S. - Russia Agreement [24, supra note 21] ending at the North Pole. The assumption appears to be that on the Russian side of the meridian that the Alpha, Mendeleev and Lomonosov Ridges are "components of the continental margin" [43, supra note 3], and not submarine ridges to which the 350 nm limit applies or oceanic ridges
10 See: R. v. Perry, (2003) (222 Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island Reports 313).
11 Australia, "Executive Summary of Submission", November 2004 and New Zealand, "Executive Summary of Submission", April 2006, available on the Commission website, supra note 3.
12 The U.S. government, for example, has stated: "Ultimate responsibility for the delimitation [of the outer limit of the continental margin] lies with the coastal State itself". President Clinton, "Message from the President of the United States transmitting United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Annexes, done at Montego Bay, December 10, 1982 (the Convention) and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, adopted at New York, July 28, 1994 (the Agreement) and signed by the United States, subject to ratification, on July 29, 1994".
that are not part of the continental margin. It has been suggested that the termination of Russia's outer limit at the North Pole corresponds with the Russian view that its continental shelf does not extend into the Western Hemisphere [44, p. 57]. To the west, in the area of the Barents Sea north of Norway (Spitsbergen) and Franz Joseph Land, the Russian line follows a line asserted by Russia in its overlapping claims dispute with Norway [18, p. 185-190]. The line extends just beyond the Russian claimed 200 nm limit to a point described as being 60nm from the foot of the slope. The line is not used seaward to the North Pole with the remainder of the proposed outer limit line indicating that the Gakkel Ridge is part of the deep ocean floor.
The United States responded to the Russian submission with a formal Notification asserting that the Alpha-Mendeleev Ridge was a volcanic feature of oceanic origin, and thus "not part of any State's continental shelf' and that the Lomonosov Ridge was "a freestanding feature of the deep, oceanic part of the Arctic Ocean Basin, and not a natural component of the continental margins of
13
either Russia or any other State" . Essentially, the United States was taking issue with the apparent assumption underlying the Russian extension of the meridian in the 1990 bilateral Agreement to the North Pole. As one author has commented, referencing Margaret Hayes of the U.S. Department of State: "State Department representatives have commented that the U.S. view of Arctic geology is evolving and that, in hindsight, the Notification reflected an inadequate appreciation of the scientific complexities involved" [45].
3.2. Norway
The 2006 Norwegian submission to the Commission and the 2009 recommendations indicate a small area beyond the 200 nm adjacent to Spitsbergen with the Russian Federation located to the east and Denmark/Greenland to the west14. As noted above this overlap has been resolved as part of the 2010 bilateral agreement with Russia.
3.3. Denmark/Greenland
The 2014 Denmark submission, similar to the Russian submission, indicates that part of the Gakkel Ridge is not within the outer limits of its continental shelf. More prominently, in accord with the Russian submission, the Danish submission takes the view that the Lomonosov Ridge "is both morphologically and geologically an integral part of the Northern Continental margin of Greenland" [supra note 5, p. 12] and has used the Russian 200 nm zone as its proposed outer limit together with points based on the Article 76 criteria to the
13 United States, "Letter", 18 March 2002, available on the Commission website, supra note 3.
14 See: Norway, "Submission," supra note 4 and Commission, "Norway Recommendations", supra note 6.
east and west of the Ridge. The result is a modest area of overlap with the submitted Russian outer limits.
An area of interest is to the southwest of the North Pole where the Russian submission utilized the 1990 U.S-Russia Agreement line, which is dependent on the outer limit of the shelf of the United States extending this far. The Denmark submission indicates that it has an interest here.
3.4. Canada
Canada's Preliminary Information notes that its continental margin includes as seafloor elevations the Lomonosov and Alpha Ridges and that on these Ridges Canada's continental shelf extends beyond the 350 nm constraint line15. This is in accord with the views of the Russian Federation and Denmark/Greenland.
3.5. United States
In 1980, the United States made clear its view that the Chukchi plateau and its component elevations north of Alaska fit the category of submarine elevations and, as such, were not subject to the 350 nm limitation applicable to submarine ridges [46, p. 43].
4.0. The Submissions and the Neighbours: "Without Prejudice"
It is important to note that the Commission will not to deal with submissions respecting the outer limits of a continental margin where the area in question is subject in anyway to a dispute between States. Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention notes that:
The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.
Annex I to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission [47, supra note 3], paragraph 5(a) states:
In cases where a land or maritime dispute exists, the Commission shall not consider ... a submission made by any of the States concerned in the dispute (emphasis added).
The procedures of the Commission have created the situation that when a State makes a submission of its proposed outer limits which another State may view as overlapping or conflicting with its possible shelf area beyond 200 nm, the Commission will not proceed without the consent of the affected State. This has led to situations where, in effect, a State has blocked the Commission from considering a submission. Two examples of note are Iceland not consenting to the Commission dealing with a submission made by Denmark [48, supra note 3] and Canada asking the Commission to refrain from considering the submission of France respecting St. Pierre and Miquelon [49, supra note 3].
15 See: Canada, "Preliminary Indication," supra note 12.
The submissions to the Commission by Denmark, Norway and the Russian Federation all contemplate the potential of overlapping shelf claims with their neighbours and the neighbours have all responded indicating that the Commission can proceed understanding that, consistent with the LOS Convention, the work of the Commission is without prejudice to the resolution of any overlapping claims. For example, the Denmark submission notes the existence of a 2014 formal understanding with the Russian Federation that Russia will not raise an objection to the Commission considering the Denmark submission and vice-a-versa that Denmark will not object to the Commission considering the Russian submission, and that the recommendations of the Commission are without prejudice to the delimitation of the shelf area between the States [5, supra note 5, p. 18]. In response to the 2001 Russian submission Denmark stated that it was "not able to form an opinion" on the submission, was not able to determine whether the Russian claim would overlap with a Denmark/Greenland shelf claim beyond 200 nm, and that Denmark's "absence of opinion" did not imply agreement with or acquiescence to the submission by the Russian Federation [50, supra note 3]. However, Denmark indicated that the actions of the Commission, including any recommendations, were without prejudice to delimitation of the continental shelf between the two countries [50].
Canada followed almost identically the same wording in its 2002 response to the Russian submission [51].
Respecting Canada, the 2014 Denmark/Greenland submission noted that: Canada was "likely" to make a submission that overlapped with that of Denmark/Greenland; there had been "regular consultations" during the preparation of the submission; and that the matter is subject to "consultations" [5, supra note 5, p. 17]. Canada confirmed this in its December 2014 note verbale [52].
The possibility of an overlapping shelf area beyond 200 nm between Norway (Svalbard) and Denmark/Greenlandin the Arctic Ocean is referenced in their 2006 bilateral Agreement [26, supra note 24, preamble paragraph 3] and the 2006 Norwegian submission to the Commission [4, supra note 4, para. 6.2]. In theNorwegian submission it is indicated that Denmark/Greenland does not object to the Commission considering the Norwegian proposed outer limit in this area and that a maritime boundary will be negotiated subsequent to the engagement of the Commission [4]. Denmark supplemented this with a confirming note verbale [53, supra note 3]. The Denmark submission similarly refers to the bilateral agreement and that Norway has no objection to the Commission proceeding with the submission [5, supra note 5, p. 17-18]. Norway confirmed this is December 2014 note verbale [54, supra note 3].
Interestingly, the Danish/Greenland submission contemplates a potential overlapping claim with the United States and indicates that the matter is subject to consultation between the States [5, supra note 5, p. 17-18].
Based on the above there is clearly a high degree of mutual understanding respecting the overlapping nature of many of the submissions and the acceptance that this will be dealt with bilaterally.
5.0. Conclusion
Based on the three submissions to the Commission, there will be an area of seafloor in the central Arctic Ocean - Gakkel Ridge - that will be beyond national jurisdiction with the result that any mineral resources therein subject the Common Heritage of Mankind principle and the management responsibility of the International Seabed Authority.Also, until Canada and the United States communicate their outer shelf limits, the extent of the 1990 Russian-U.S. Treaty line is uncertain with the result that a small area of seafloor may exist beyond the outer limits of the Arctic States.
The three submissions indicate that are significant overlapping claims to continental shelf areas beyond 200 nm in the central Arctic Ocean. This can be expected to be made more complicated when Canada makes its submission and when the United States publicizes its outer continental shelf limits. However, the five Arctic States are clearly aware of this scenario and have indicated that negotiations are the way forward.
Appendix
The criteria agreed upon in Article 76 of the LOS Convention to be applied by a coastal State in determining its outer limit of the continental margin beyond 200 nm is succinctly set out below.
• Pursuant to Article 76(4), an envelope for the outer limit of the margin is first created by determining the foot of the continental slope and then constructing
o a line connecting the outermost points where "the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least one per cent of the shortest distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope", or
o a line connecting points "not more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope".
• The envelope created by Article 76(4) is subject to two constraints. The lines created pursuant to 76(4) are not to extend beyond:
o 350 nm from a State's baselines; or o 100 nm from the 2,500 metreisobath.
• For submarine ridges, the 350 nm limit applies. However, for "submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin, such as its plateaux, rises, caps, banks and spurs", 100 nm from the 2,500 metreisobath criterion is the limitation.
• There is a general limitation that the continental margin does not include the oceanic floor with its oceanic ridges.
The criteria are not easily applicable in any given situation because of the technical and definitional difficulties of determining the thickness of sedimentary rocks, the foot of the continental slope, the 2,500 metreisobath, and distinguishing among submarine ridges, oceanic ridges, and submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Russian Federation. Continental Shelf Submission : Executive Summary, December 2001 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
4. Norway. Continental Shelf Submission in respect of areas in the Arctic Ocean, the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea : Executive Summary, December 2006 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
5. Denmark. Partial Submission - The Northern Continental Shelf of Greenland, December 2014 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). -Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
6. Norway. Summary of Recommendations ot he Comission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Submission Made by Norway in Respect of Areas in the Arctic Ocean, the Barents sea and the Norwegian Sea on 27 November 2006 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
7. 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/UNDOC/GEN/N02/629/28/PDF/N02 62928.pdf? OpenElement.
8. Territorial expansion on Arctic Agenda [Electronic resource] // Barents Observer. - 2014. - 30 October. - Access: http://barentsobserver.com/en/ arctic/2014/10/territorial-expansion-arctic-agenda-30-10.
9. Russia to follow Denmark with Arctic shelf claim in March 2015 [Electronic resource] // Barents Observer. - 2014. - 17 December. - Access: http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/12/russia-follow-denmark-arctic-shelf-claim-march-2015-17-12.
10. Harper orders new draft of Arctic seabed claim to include North Pole // The Globe and Mail (Toronto). - 2013. - 4 December.
11. Canada. Partial Submission - The Atlantic Ocean, November 2013 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm.
12. Canada. Preliminary Information - the Arctic Ocean, November 2013 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm.
13. United States Policy Governing the Continental Shelf of the United States of America // Excessive Maritime Claims / J. A. Roach, R. W. Smith. - 3rd ed. - Leiden ; Boston : MartinusNijhoff, 2012. - P. 187-188.
14. McDorman, T. L. Maritime Limits and Boundaries in the Arctic Ocean : Agreements and Disputes / T. L. McDorman, C. Schofield // Handbook of the Politics of the Arctic / ed. by L. C. Jensen, G. Honneland. - (In press).
15. Agreement between Norway and the Soviet Union concerning the Sea Frontier in the Varanger Fjord, 27 February 1957 // United States. Treaty Series. - 1957. - Vol. 312. - P. 289.
16. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Norway on the Maritime Delimitation in the Varangerfjord Area, 11 July 2007 // Law of the Sea Bulletin. - 2008. - Vol. 67. - P. 42.
17. Wood, M. Norway - Russian Federation // International Maritime Boundaries. - Leiden : MartinusNijhoff, 2011. - Vol. VI. - P. 4479-4487.
18. Arctic Maritime Delimitations: The Preponderance of Similarities with Other Regions // The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction / ed. by A. G. Oude Elferink, D. R. Rothwell. - Hague : MartinusNijhoff, 2001. - P. 185-190.
19. Honneland, G. Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea. - Cheltenham, U.K. : Edward Elgar, 2012. -160 p.
20. Henriksen, T. Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty / T. Henriksen, G. Ulfstein // Ocean Development & International Law. -2011. - Vol. 42, Iss.1-2. - P. 1-21.
21. Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 15 September 2010, U.N.T.S. Reg. No. 49095 (2012) [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTRE ATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/NOR-RUS2010.PDF.
22. Byers, M. International Law and the Arctic / M. Byers. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2013. - 314 p.
23. Lavrov, S. Canada: take note : Here's how to resolve maritime disputes / S. Lavrov, J. G. Store [Electronic resource] // Toronto Globe and Mail. - 2010. -21 September. - Access: www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-take-note-heres-how-to-resolve-maritime-disputes/article4326372/.
24. Agreement between the United States and the Soviet Socialist Republic on the Maritime Boundary, 1 June 1990, provisionally in force 15 June 1990, reprinted in (1990), 29 I.L.M. 941 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREA TIES/USA-RUS1990MB PDF.
25. Verville, E. G. United States - Soviet Union // International Maritime Boundaries. - Dordrecht : MartinusNijhoff, 1996. - Vol. I. - P. 447-460.
26. Agreement between Norway and Denmark together with the Home Rule Government of Greenland on the other hand, concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf and the Fisheries Zones in the Area between Greenland and Svalbard, 20 February 2006, 2378 U.N.T.S. 21 [Electronic resource]. - Access: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=1.
27. Agreement between Canada and Denmark relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, 17 December 1973, 950 U.N.T.S. 147 [Electronic resource]. - Access: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Pub lication/UNTS/Volume%20950/volume-950-I-13550-English.pdf.
28. Huebert, R. The Return of the Vikings: The Canadian - Danish Dispute over Hans Island - New Challenges for the Control of the Canadian North // Breaking Ice : Renewable Resources and Ocean Management in the Canadian North / ed. by F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, A. Diduck. - Calgary : University of Calgary Press, 2005. - P. 319-336.
29. Canada and Kingdom of Denmark Reach Tentative Agreement on Lincoln Sea Boundary : Press Release, 28 November 2012 / Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development [Electronic resource]. - Access: www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2012/11/28a.aspx.
30. Gray, D. H. Canada's Unresolved Maritime Boundaries // Geomatica. -1994. - Vol. 48, no. 2. - P. 131-144.
31. Canada. Fishing Zones of Canada (Zone 6) Order // Consolidated Regulations of Canada. - 1978. - Ch. 1549. - P. 13747-13750.
32. Convention between Great Britain and Russia Concerning the Limits of their Respective Possessions on the North-West Coast of America and the Navigation of the Pacific Ocean, 16 February 1825 // Consolidated Treaty Series. -Dobbs Ferry : Oceana Publications, 1969. - Vol. 75. - P. 95-101.
33. Exclusive Economic Zone and Maritime Boundaries : [Public Notice 2237, 23 August 1995] / United States, Department of State // Federal Register. -1985. - Vol. 60, no. 163. - P. 43825-43829.
34. Canada. U.S. to team up on Arctic seabed mapping project, CBC News, 30 June 2008 [Electronic resource]. - Access: www.cbc.ca/technology/story/ 2008/06/30/cda-mapping.html.
35. Boswell, R. Beaufort Sea breakthrough : Canada Open to negotiating with U.S. over rights to oil-rich seabed // Vancouver Sun (Canwest News Service). - 2010. - 18 February.
36. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Iss. 8, 1 November 2010 [Electronic resource]. - Access: www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/403/defe/08evb-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&comm_i d=76.
37. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar),
Judgment, 14 March 2012, at para. 409 [Electronic resource] // The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. - Access: www.itlos.org.
38. Treaty between Australia and New Zealand establishing certain Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Boundaries, 25 July 2004, 2441 U.N.T.S. 235 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.un.org/depts/los/ LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/NZL.htm.
39. Senate. Treaty Document 39, 103d Congress, 2d Session IV (1994) // International Legal Materials. - 1995. - Vol. 34. - P. 1393-1447. - Reprint.
40. United Nations. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea // The Law of the Sea : Definition of the Continental Shelf. - New York, 1993. - P. 29.
41. International Law Association. Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf : report // Report of the Seventy-First Conference held in Berlin, 2004. - London, 2004. - P. 785-786.
42. McDorman, T. L. The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf : A Technical Body in a Political World // International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. - 2002. - Vol. 17, no 3. - P. 301-324.
43. Statement made by the deputy Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation during presentation of the submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission, made on 28 March 2002. Doc. CLCS/31, 5 April 2002 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_documents.htm.
44. Gorski, T. A Note on Submarine Ridges and Elevations with Special Reference to the Russian Federation and the Arctic Ridges // Ocean Development and International Law. - 2009. - Vol. 40 (1). - P. 51-60.
45. Baker, B. Law, Science, and the Continental Shelf : The Russian Federation and the Promise of Arctic Cooperation // American University International Law Review. - 2010. - Vol. 25, Iss. 2. - P. 10-38.
46. Richardson, E. Statement : 3 April 1980, in Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea // Official Records. - New York, 1981. - Vol. XIII. - P. 43.
47. Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental : doc. CLCS/40/Rev.1, 17 April 2008 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=CLCS /40/Rev.1&Lang=E.
48. Iceland. Note verbale, 5 April 2011 respecting Denmark, «Partial Submission - The Southern Continental Shelf of the Faroe Islands» December 2010 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
49. Canada. Note verbale, 3 September 2014 respecting France, «Partial Submission - St Pierre et Miquelon», April 2014 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
50. Denmark. Note verbal, 26 February 2002 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commissi on_submissions.htm.
51. Canada. Note verbal, 26 February 2002 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commis sion_submissions.htm.
52. Canada. Note verbale, 29 December 2014 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commissi on_submissions.htm.
53. Denmark. Note verbal, 24 January 2007 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_sub missions.htm.
54. Norway. Note verbale, 17 December 2014 [Electronic resource] // United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). - Access: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new /commission submissions.htm.
REFERENCES
1. The Ilulissat Declaration. Arctic Ocean Governance Conference, Ilulissat, Greenland, 27-28 May 2008. Available at: http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/ arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
2. 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.
3. Russian Federation. Continental Shelf Submission: Executive Summary, December 2001. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/ los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
4. Norway. Continental Shelf Submission in respect of areas in the Arctic Ocean, the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea : Executive Summary, December 2006. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los /clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
5. Denmark. Partial Submission - The Northern Continental Shelf of Greenland, December 2014. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
6. Norway. Summary of Recommendations ot he Comission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Submission Made by Norway in Respect of Areas in the Arctic Ocean, the Barents sea and the Norwegian Sea on 27 November 2006. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/ los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
7. 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/UND0C/GEN/N02/629/28/PDF/N0262928.pdf70penElement (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
8. Territorial expansion on Arctic Agenda. Barents Observer, 2014, 30 October. Available at: http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/10/territorial-expansion-arctic-agenda-30-10 (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
9. Russia to follow Denmark with Arctic shelf claim in March 2015. Barents Observer, 2014, 17 December. Available at: http://barentsobserver.com/ en/arctic/2014/12/russia-follow-denmark-arctic-shelf-claim-march-2015-17-12 (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
10. Harper orders new draft of Arctic seabed claim to include North Pole. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 2013, 4 December.
11. Canada. Partial Submission - The Atlantic Ocean, November 2013. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/ clcs_home.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
12. Canada. Preliminary Information - the Arctic Ocean, November 2013. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/ clcs_home.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
13. United States Policy Governing the Continental Shelf of the United States of America. Roach J.A., Smith R.W. Excessive Maritime Claims. 3rd ed. Leiden; Boston: MartinusNijhoff, 2012, pp. 187-188.
14. McDorman T.L., Schofield C. Maritime Limits and Boundaries in the Arctic Ocean : Agreements and Disputes. Jensen L.C., Honneland G., eds. Handbook of the Politics of the Arctic. (In press).
15. Agreement between Norway and the Soviet Union concerning the Sea Frontier in the Varanger Fjord, 27 February 1957. United States. Treaty Series, 1957, vol. 312, p. 289.
16. Agreement between the Russian Federation and Norway on the Maritime Delimitation in the Varangerfjord Area, 11 July 2007. Law of the Sea Bulletin,2008, vol. 67, p. 42.
17. Wood M. Norway - Russian Federation. International Maritime Boundaries, Leiden: MartinusNijhoff, 2011, vol. VI, pp. 4479-4487.
18. Arctic Maritime Delimitations: The Preponderance of Similarities with Other Regions. Oude Elferink A.G., Rothwell D.R., eds.The Law of the Sea and
Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction. Hague: MartinusNijhoff, 2001, pp. 185-190.
19. Honneland G. Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 2012. 160 p.
20. Henriksen T., Ulfstein G. Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty. Ocean Development & International Law, 2011, vol. 42, Iss.1-2, pp.1-21.
21. Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 15 September 2010, U.N.T.S. Reg. No. 49095 (2012). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREA TIES/NOR-RUS2010.PDF (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
22. Byers M. International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 314 p.
23. Lavrov S., Store J. G. Canada: take note: Here's how to resolve maritime disputes. Toronto Globe and Mail, 2010, 21 September. Available at: www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-take-note-heres-how-to-resolve-maritime-disputes/article4326372/ (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
24. Agreement between the United States and the Soviet Socialist Republic on the Maritime Boundary, 1 June 1990, provisionally in force 15 June 1990, reprinted in (1990), 29 I.L.M. 941. Available at: http://www.un.org/Dep ts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/USA-RUS1990MB.PDF (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
25. Verville E.G. United States - Soviet Union. International Maritime Boundaries. Dordrecht: MartinusNijhoff, 1996, vol. I, pp. 447-460.
26. Agreement between Norway and Denmark together with the Home Rule Government of Greenland on the other hand, concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf and the Fisheries Zones in the Area between Greenland and Svalbard, 20 February 2006, 2378 U.N.T.S. 21. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=1 (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
27. Agreement between Canada and Denmark relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, 17 December 1973, 950 U.N.T.S. 147. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/ Volume%20950/volume-950-I-13550-English.pdf (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
28. Huebert R. The Return of the Vikings: The Canadian - Danish Dispute over Hans Island - New Challenges for the Control of the Canadian North. Berkes F., Huebert R., Fast H., Manseau M., Diduck A., eds. Breaking Ice: Renewable Resources and Ocean Management in the Canadian North. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2005, pp. 319-336.
29. Canada and Kingdom of Denmark Reach Tentative Agreement on Lincoln Sea Boundary : Press Release, 28 November 2012. Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Available at: www.internatio nal.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2012/11/28a.aspx (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
30. Gray D. H. Canada's Unresolved Maritime Boundaries. Geomatica, 1994, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 131-144.
31. Canada. Fishing Zones of Canada (Zone 6) Order. Consolidated Regulations of Canad, 1978, Ch. 1549, pp. 13747-13750.
32. Convention between Great Britain and Russia Concerning the Limits of their Respective Possessions on the North-West Coast of America and the Navigation of the Pacific Ocean, 16 February 1825. Consolidated Treaty Series. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications, 1969, vol. 75, pp. 95-101.
33. Exclusive Economic Zone and Maritime Boundaries [Public Notice 2237, 23 August 1995]. United States, Department of State. Federal Register, 1985, vol. 60, no. 163, pp. 43825-43829.
34. Canada. U.S. to team up on Arctic seabed mapping project, CBC News, 30 June 2008. Available at: www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/30/cda-mapping.html (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
35. Boswell R. Beaufort Sea breakthrough : Canada Open to negotiating with U.S. over rights to oil-rich seabed. Vancouver Sun (Canwest News Service), 2010, 18 February.
36. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Iss. 8, 1 November 2010. Available at: www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN /Committee/403/defe/08evb-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&comm_id=76 (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
37. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, 14 March 2012, at para. 409. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Available at: www.itlos.org (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
38. Treaty between Australia and New Zealand establishing certain Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Boundaries, 25 July 2004, 2441 U.N.T.S. 235. Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/ los/LEGISLATI ONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/NZL.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
39. Senate. Treaty Document 39, 103d Congress, 2d Session IV (1994). International Legal Materials, 1995, vol. 34, pp. 1393-1447. (Reprint).
40. United Nations. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. The Law of the Sea : Definition of the Continental Shelf New York, 1993, p. 29.
41. International Law Association. Committee on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf: report. Report of the Seventy-First Conference held in Berlin, 2004. London, 2004, pp. 785-786.
42. McDorman T. L. The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2002, vol. 17, no 3, pp. 301-324.
43. Statement made by the deputy Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation during presentation of the submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission, made on 28 March 2002. Doc. CLCS/31, 5 April 2002. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_ new/commission_documents.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
44. Gorski T. A Note on Submarine Ridges and Elevations with Special Reference to the Russian Federation and the Arctic Ridges. Ocean Development and International Law, 2009, vol. 40 (1), pp. 51-60.
45. Baker B. Law, Science, and the Continental Shelf : The Russian Federation and the Promise of Arctic Cooperation. American University International Law Review, 2010, vol. 25, Iss. 2, pp. 10-38.
46. Richardson E. Statement: 3 April 1980, in Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Official Records, New York, 1981, vol. XIII, p. 43.
47. Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental: doc. CLCS/40/Rev.1, 17 April 2008. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=CLCS/40/Rev.1&Lang=E (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
48. Iceland. Note verbale, 5 April 2011 respecting Denmark, «Partial Submission - The Southern Continental Shelf of the Faroe Islands» December 2010. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los /clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
49. Canada. Note verbale, 3 September 2014 respecting France, «Partial Submission - St Pierre et Miquelon», April 2014. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions. htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
50. Denmark. Note verbal, 26 February 2002. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
51. Canada. Note verbal, 26 February 2002. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
52. Canada. Note verbale, 29 December 2014. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_sub missions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
53. Denmark. Note verbal, 24 January 2007. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
54. Norway. Note verbale, 17 December 2014. United Nations. Oceans & Law of the Sea. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions. htm (accessed 14 Febrary 2015).
