22СУДОХОДСТВО В АРКТИКЕ SHIPPING IN THE ARCTIC
Алдо Чиркоп, председатель международной рабочей группы по полярному судоходству, профессор университета Дальхузи, Галифакс, Новая Шотландия, Канада. E-mail: aldo.chircop@dal.ca
МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЕ АРКТИЧЕСКОГО СУДОХОДСТВА: ПОЯВЛЯЮЩИЕСЯ СТАНДАРТЫ И ОСТАЮЩИЕСЯ ПРОБЕЛЫ
Международная морская организация (ИМО) является ведущей межправительственной организацией, компетентной в вопросах навигации и судоходства. В этом качестве она играет ключевую роль в Конвенции ООН по морскому праву 1982 г. (далее - Конвенция) [1]. Со времен своего основания данная организация распространяет свою компетенцию на более чем 60 международных конвенций и протоколов [2]. Несмотря на обширное регулирование, только небольшая часть деятельности ИМО посвящена полярному судоходству. Лишь относительно недавно ИМО сосредоточила свое внимание на частных особенностях навигации в Арктике через развитие международных стандартов и правил морской безопасности и охраны морской среды.
В 2009 г. Арктический Совет издал обширный доклад, названный Оценкой Арктического Морского Судоходства (ОАМС) и определивший целый ряд проблем для регулирования полярного судоходства в интересах морской безопасности и защиты уникальной и хрупкой окружающей среды региона [3]. В то время как ИМО не требуется дополнительный мандат для отправления своей компетенции относительно вопросов арктического судоходства, ОАМС оказался полезен в том смысле, что продемонстрировал Организации, как арктические государства видят нужды судоходства в регионе. Данный доклад служит в качестве дорожной карты для проблем, к которым требуется прогрессивный подход со стороны ИМО, Арктического Совета или других международных организаций.
Со своей стороны, ИМО ответила растущим вызовам регулирования полярного судоходства и предприняла шаги через серию инициатив и, в частности, через обширный Международный Кодекс для судов, осуществляющих плавание через полярные воды (Полярный Кодекс [4; 5; 6]). В ноябре 2014 г. Комитет Морской Безопасности (КМБ) ИМО принял положения по безопасности в рамках долгожданного и обязательного Полярного Кодекса [7]. Ожидается также, что Комитет по защите морской среды утвердит природоохранные положения в Кодексе не позже мая 2015 г. [7]. Ко-
А. Чиркоп
декс включает в себя поправки к двум ключевым морским конвенциям, а именно к Конвенции о спасении жизни на море 1974 (СОЛАС) [7] и Конвенции о предотвращении загрязнения с судов 1973/78 (МАРПОЛ) [9]. Полярный Кодекс вступит в силу с 1 января 2017 г.
Представленный скачок в развитии явился результатом отраслевых инициатив и инициатив ИМО, направленных на повышение стандартов полярной навигации, однако нельзя сказать, чтобы он был исчерпывающим для всех аспектов регулирования полярного судоходства. Спешка в принятии Кодекса породила упрощение или смешивание нескольких важных вопросов, которые подлежали обсуждению, включая вопросы компетенции судоводителей и безопасности окружающей среды. Несомненно, необходимо дальнейшее регулирующее развитие. Международный Морской Комитет - неправительственная организация, занимающаяся развитием и продвижением унификации морского права, с 1897 г. уже обозначила вызовы, требующие ответа.
Данная статья освещает предварительный базис, вновь возникающие национальные стандарты и определяет пробелы и проблемы, которые подлежат урегулированию в будущем. Особое внимание здесь уделяется международным стандартам, в отличие от национальных норм, применимых к полярной навигации, таких, например, как те, что применимы для плавания в Арктических водах Российской Федерации и Канады. Исследование начинается с анализа Полярного Кодекса и продолжается разбором иных отраслевых инициатив и инициатив ИМО, направленных на развитие полярных стандартов. Затем акцент направляется на предполагаемые недостатки, которые, вероятно, привлекут дополнительные изменения в регулировании, и, наконец, на обзорные выводы по теме. Идея статьи заключается в том, что, несмотря на то, что принятый ИМО режим полярной навигации полностью применим к соответствующим отношениям, работа над правилами полярной навигации остается одной из важнейших задач ИМО. Выводы исследования носят характер предварительных, поскольку ИМО находится в процессе завершения Полярного Кодекса и соответствующих докладов, недоступных автору.
Ключевые слова: международное право, Арктика, Международная морская организация, международное морское право, Полярный кодекс, Международные стандарты судоходства, полярная навигация.
Aldo Chircop, Professor of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Chair International Working Group on Polar Shipping, Comité Maritime International. E-mail: aldo.chircop@dal.ca
THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF ARCTIC SHIPPING: EMERGING STANDARDS AND REMAINING GAPS
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the leading intergovernmental organization competent in matters of navigation and shipping. In this capacity it has key roles to playin the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (LOS Convention) [1]. Since its establishment, it has exercised its competence through over 60 international conventions and protocols [2]. Despite extensive regulation, very few of the IMO's activities concerned on polar shipping. It is only relatively recently that the IMO focused regulatory attention on the particular navigation conditions of the Arctic by developing international standards and rules for maritime safety and marine environment protection.
In 2009 the Arctic Council produced a major report entitled Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA Report) which produced a detailed inventory of issues for polar shipping regulation in the interests of maritime safety and protection of the unique and fragile environment of the region1 [3]. While the IMO did not need an additional mandate to exercise its competence with regard to Arctic shipping issues, the AMSA Report was useful in indicating to the Organization how Arctic States viewed the needs of shipping in the region. The Report serves as a roadmap for issues that need to be addressed progressively by the IMO, Arctic Council and other international bodies.
For its part, the IMO responded to growing calls for polar shipping regulation and took steps through a series of initiatives and in particular with the major International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code)2 [4; 5; 6]. In November 2014 the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the IMO adopted the safety provisions of the long-awaited mandatory Polar Code [7]. The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is expected to approve the environmental protection provisions of the Code in May 2015 [7]. The Code includes amendments to two key international maritime conventions, namely the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS)3 [8] and Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973/78 (MARPOL)4 [9]. The Polar Code will enter into force on 1st January 2017.
1 Hereafter - AMSA Report.
2 At the time of writing a finalized version of the Polar Code was not available to the author. The reader should refer to the finalized version that will be made publicly available by the IMO in due course. From interim information.
3 Hereinafter SOLAS.
4 Hereafter MARPOL.
This major development occurred in the wake of other IMO and industry initiatives aimed at raising standards for polar navigation, but cannot be said to be fully comprehensive of all aspects of polar shipping regulation. The pressure to adopt the Code resulted in simplifying or dropping altogether a number of important issues that were on the negotiating table, including with regard to competences of seafarers and environmental protection. There is no question that further regulatory work still needs to take place. Discussions in the Comité Maritime International (CMI), an international non-government organization dedicated to the development and promotion of uniformity of maritime law since 1897, among other bodies, have already flagged issues that will need to be addressed.
This paper discusses, on a provisional basis, the emerging international standards for polar navigation and identifies gaps and issues that will likely need to be addressed through further regulation.The emphasis is on international rules and standards, rather than national rules, such as those applicable to polar shipping in Canadian and Russian Federation Arctic waters. The paper starts by discussing the Polar Code and follows with other IMO and industry initiatives aimed at developing polar standards. The paper then moves to the identification of gaps that can be expected to attract future regulatory attention before offering concluding observations. The paper's message is that even after the IMO regime for polar shipping is fully operational, work on polar navigation rules and standards will remain an ongoing task for the Organization. The discussion and conclusions are provisional because the IMO is in the process of finalizing the Polar Code and related reports which were not available to the author at the time this paper was written.
Keywords: International Law, Arctics, International maritime organization, International maritime law, Polar code, International shipping standards, Polar navigation.
1.THE POLAR CODE
1.1. Backdrop
As mentioned, the adoption of the Polar Code is a milestone event, in particular because it is the culmination of a process of review and assessment of standards needed for maritime safety and marine environment protection in Arctic and Antarctic waters. However, to be precise, efforts at developing standards for polar shipping commenced much earlier. In 2002 the IMO adopted the Guidelines for Ships Operating in Ice-Covered Arctic Waters after an initial proposal from Germany in the 1990s followed by a submission from Canada [10]. As the name suggests, these guidelines were limited to Arctic waters and, signif-icantly,they were voluntary. This was in stark contrast to the usual mandatory character of international standards for maritime safety. In 2009 amendments to the guidelines were adopted, including renaming them as Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters [11]. As the name suggests, the scope of the original
guidelines was widened to include the Southern Ocean's waters around Antarctica, but they remained voluntary. Although amended, it was agreed that there was need to further develop the guidelines into mandatorystandards and rules under SOLAS and MARPOL. As the principal instrument concerning maritime safety, SOLAS provides a general framework and includes detailed regulatory chapters supported by codes and guidelines. Similarly, MARPOL provides the framework for the regulation of vessel-source pollution, including construction and waste operation rules and standards.
Various deadlines for completion of work were not met, likely because there was some underestimation of the complexity of adapting existing and developing new rules for polar navigation applicable to both polar regions (even though navigating conditions in the Arctic and Antarctic can be different), while ensuring broad support among IMO Member States. After considering successive versions, the IMO's Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Construction (SDC) produced acomposite draft of the proposed code for consideration by the MSC and MEPCin 2014.
1.2. General approach
At the outset the Polar Code was intended to be holistic, goal-oriented and risk-based. It is intended to supplement existing IMO rules and standards because of the recognition of the particular demands and conditions of polar shipping, including the vulnerabilities of Northern communities and marine ecosystems [5, supra, Preamble]. It is cognizant of the close interrelationship between safety and environmental concerns. Thus the overall goal of the Code is "to provide for safe ship operation and the protection of the polar environment by addressing risks present in polar waters and not adequately mitigated by other instruments of the Organization" [5, Section 1, Goal].
In reality, whereas the Code is visibly goal-oriented and risk-based, it cannot really be said to be "holistic" in approach. Several important issues flagged during negotiations were not pursued further or remain under-addressed. Rather it is a comprehensive instrument that adopts an integrated approach within limits. It includes amendments to SOLAS, supplements and amendments to MARPOL and interacts with theInternational Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW) [12, Resolution 11 and Section B-V/g.]. It was thought that the Polar Code might also require coordination with the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 [13] and International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 [14] but many of the State delegations felt that the existing ballast water regulations were appropriate and that while measures are recommended to minimize rapid degradation of anti-fouling coatings as a result of ice operations, no new regulations were proposed. As will be discussed below, the environmental provisions are limited to pollution prevention rather than addressing the broad range of threats that ships pose to the marine environment. Other potentially significant safety issues, such as collision avoidance rules and load lines discussed below, were also not addressed.
The goal-based approach in practice means that each chapter of the Code is guided by a stated goal, encouraging an outcome-based approach to compliance with the regulations. The risk-based approach signifies that compliance with a specific regulation should be with reference to the particular risks posed by polar navigation. The multiple hazards to which Arctic shipping is exposed present a significantly higher risk level than most other trading regions.
The scope of application in "Arctic waters" is set out consistently with earlier definitions in the earlier guidelines (see Figure 1)5 [8, Annex 23]. It has mandatory requirements and recommendations. The mandatory provisions are set out in Parts I-A and II-A. Substantively, the Code largely reflects SOLAS and STCW concerns in Part I-A and MARPOL in Part II-A.
Fig. 1. Scope of application of the Polar Code in Arctic waters Source: Polar Code, fn 4.
5 "Arctic waters means those waters which are located north of a line from the latitude 58°00.0' N and longitude 042°00.0' W to latitude 64°37.0' N, longitude 035°27.0' W and thence by a rhumb line to latitude 67°03.9' N, longitude 026°33.4' W and thence by a rhumb line to Serkapp, Jan Mayen and by the southern shore of Jan May en to the Island of Bjernoya, and thence by a great circle line from the Island of Bjerneya to Cap Kanin Nos and hence by the northern shore of the Asian Continent eastward to the Bering Strait and thence from the Bering Strait westward to latitude 60°N as far as Il'pyrskiy and following the 60th North parallel eastward as far as and including Etolin Strait and thence by the northern shore of the North American continent as far south as latitude 60°N and thence eastward along parallel of latitude60°N, to longitude 56°37.1' W and thence to the latitude 58°00.0' N, longitude 042°00.0' W."
1.3. Safety provisions
The Polar Codeis cognizant of a broad range of hazards to shipping and that risk levels vary from area to area in the Arctic and Antarctic [5, supra, Introduction, Section 3]. It addresses a wide range of requirements concerning maritime safety, including design, construction and equipping (certification and surveying, ship structure, stability and subdivision, watertight and weathertight integrity, machinery installations, fire safety, life-saving appliances and arrangements), operations (manual on board, safety of navigation, communication, voyage planning) and crewing (manning and training familiarity).The distinctiveness of polar regions necessitated the introduction of new documentary and operational requirements on board vessels, namely the Polar Ship Certificate, the Polar Water Operational Manual (PWOM), and the concept of Polar Service Temperature [5, Part I-A, Chap. 1, reg. 1.4 and Chap. 2 respectively. (CHECK REGS)].
A key development is the creation of a new Chapter XIV in SOLAS entitled "Safety Measures for Ships Operating in Polar Waters" [8, Annex 23: Draft New SOLAS Chapter XIV, supra]. The Introduction and the mandatory Part I-A of the Polar Code are accepted for adoption on the basis of the tacit acceptance process in SOLAS. Part I-B provisions of the Code are only of a recommendatory nature. Chapter XIV applies to ships operating in polar waters as certified under Chapter I of SOLAS. The rules do not apply to government vessels used on noncommercial service [8, reg. 2(4)].
Affected vessels are required to be surveyed and certified according to the Polar Code and to be issued the Polar Ship Certificate [8, reg. 3]. The Certificate will be subject to inspection as other mandatory vessel certificates. The Code retains some flexibility for vessels that deviate with regards to structural requirements, machinery and electrical installation, fire safety design and arrangement measures, and life-saving appliances and arrangements set out respectively in chapters 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Polar Code. They may deviate from the Code's requirements as long as the alternative design and arrangements are consistent with the goal and functional requirements so as to result in an equivalent level of safety and are recorded in the Polar Ship Certificate [8, reg. 4(2) and (4)].
The Polar Code is cognizant of key aspects that distinguished Arctic and Antarctic waters from other marine areas and introduces appropriate innovations. For example, the PWOM is a decision-making tool to provide the owner, operator, master and crew with sufficient information regarding the vessel's operational capabilities [5, supra, Part I-A, Chap. 2]. It includes instructions with risk-based procedures, including for salvage, search and rescue, spill response and maintaining life support and ship integrity in the event the ship is entrapped in ice [5, Part I-A, Chap. 2, reg. 2.3.3]. The rules on survival are extensive [5, Part I-A, Chap. 8]. In addition to equipment and crew training, passengers are to be instructed on the use of personal survival equipment and action to take during an emergency [5, Part I-A, Chap. 8, reg. 8.3.3.3]. The Code had to address the realistic possibility that an evacuation of a vessel might require disembarkation on ice, rather than into life boats [5, Part I-A, Chap. 8, reg. 8.3.2]. This is important
given the increasing presence of cruise ships in different parts of the Arctic (and Antarctic). The rules on navigation safety and communications pay special attention to critical information and equipment, including for survival craft [5, Part I-A, Chap. 10]. Particular attention is focused on voyage planning by the master, who is required to take into consideration key information, such as hydrographic information, presence of ice and icebergs, places of refuge, likely presence of marine mammals and related speed and traffic recommendations, protected areas and areas of limited search and rescue reach along the intended route [5, Part I-A, Chap. 11, reg. 11.3].
Although addressed to some extent in the 2010 amendments to STCW, the Polar Code also addresses crewing and training aspects to ensure that crews are adequately qualified, trained and experienced [5, Part I-A, Chap. 12]. Shipowners are responsible to ensure that masters, officers and mates responsible for the watch are properly qualified in accordance with both the Code and STCW [5, Part I-A, Chap. 12, reg. 12.2].
1.4. Environmental provisions
The Polar Code addresses environmental concerns in Part II and, similarly to the safety provisions, they are set out as mandatory provisions in Part II-A and recommendatory provisions in Part II-B. This part of the Code is disappointing in terms of its limited scope and reach. The original intention was to address environmental risks posed by shipping in polar regions. In reality the Code provides in-depth treatment only to vessel-source pollution, with only marginal references to other environmental concerns. Admittedly, there is attention to the need for voyage planning and navigation to take into consideration the possible presence of marine mammals and routeing through protected areas as a preventive measure. However, environmental organizations expected much more6.The AMSA Report had identified a broader range ofenvironmental impacts produced by ships in addition to pollution, such as ballast waters and ship strikes [3, supra, (62, 106, 108, 136, 143, 145-149, 150, 152)]. With regard to the latter, the AMSA Report had indicated the likely need for the designation of particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs) and routeing measures to protect particular species
6 "The co-sponsors propose a work program be agreed at MEPC 67 specifically to develop a comprehensive environmental chapter (or chapters) which would be incorporated as soon as possible into step two of the Polar Code. Such discussions should include: issues around HFO use in the Arctic (noting that MEPC 65 agreed that regulation now was premature but future regulation might be desirable/possible); carriage of heavy-grade oil in the Arctic; environmental and climate impact of ship air pollution; black carbon (subject to progress at PPR/MEPC); ballast water management; hull fouling; underwater noise; ship speed as related to safety and environmental protection; grey water discharges (currently unregulated in any manner); broader voyage planning elements; lube oils; ice strengthening/damage stability arrangements for category C ships operating in ice." See: Environmental protection in the Polar Code, Submitted by Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Pacific Environment and the Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) (IMO Doc. MEPC 67/9/9, 22 August 2014).
(marine and terrestrial) and ice routes [3, Part II-A, Chap. 1, reg. 1.4.1 ]. Such measureswill have to wait for another day at the IMO when the region's coastal States are ready to advance concrete PSSA and routeing measure proposals.
The provisions of Part II-Aaddress pollution prevention matters with reference to pertinent MARPOL annexes. In practice, the Code adds new rules to accompany MARPOL annexes, but without establish the Arctic as a "special area" (Antarctic waters are already "special areas" for various annexes as a result of prior amendments to MARPOL). Establishment of "special areas" would have required provision of reception facilities in the region, as is generally the case with MARPOL special areas, but which clearly would pose problems in the Arctic where ports are few and far in-between and are unlikely to possess the reception facilities of other marine regions.
The core of Part II-A consists of five chapters that mirror Annexes I-V of MARPOL in addressing oil pollution by or from oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage. Chapter 3 on harmful substances in packaged form is intentionally left blank at this time. The other chapters add supplementary rules to MARPOL. For example Chapter 1 introduces a "0" discharge rule for oil [3, Part II-A, Chap. 3, reg. 4.4]. Chapter 3 raises the standards for equipment and discharge of sewage (although grey water is not addressed, another environmental concern!) [3, Part II-A, Chap. 5, reg. 5.4.2]. Chapter 5 raises standards for discharge of food waste and prohibits the discharge of animal carcasses [3, Part II-A, Chap. 3, reg. 4.4 regarding sewage]. For MARPOL purposes, the distance of a vessel from the nearest land is important to indicate what wastes may be discharged at sea, in what form, at which rate and at what distance from the coast. The reasoning behind this is to ensure that the released waste can be readily assimilated in the marine environment. In the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic), the nearest land might actually be buffered by ice, potentially creating a problem for discharges measured on the basis of distance from land rather than ice. Hence the Code had to address this matter with regard to the application ofMARPOL annexes by ensuring that distances for permitted discharges are measured not only from the nearest land, but also ice shelf and land fast ice [3, (60-61, 180)]. Discharges in areas where the ice to water ratio exceeds 1/10 are also to be avoided [3, Chap. V, regs. 5, 6, 31, 32].
2. OTHER INITIATIVES
Important as it is, the Polar Code is only one stepin a succession of multiple regulatory and other initiatives at the IMO and elsewhere intended to address aspects of polar shipping. Prior to the SOLAS amendments in the Code, there was an important update to Chapter V of that convention regarding meteorological services and warnings to include ice data, Ice Patrol Service (established as a result of the sinking of the "Titanic") and danger messages including for ice conditions [15, Chap. 6. The Code came into force in 2010]. An important instrument is the Intact Stability Code and this was amended in 2008 to include recommen-
7
dations regarding icing allowances for loading purposes to ensure stability . The Polar Code makes an important cross-reference to this instrument with regard to stability requirements. The International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code), an important Chapter VII SOLAS code, was amended to include a procedure for carriage of cargo at low temperature [16].
Also prior to the Polar Code, the IMO anticipated the need for standards for cruise ships operating in polar waters and for this purpose it adopted voluntary Guidelines on Voyage Planning for Passenger Ships in Remote Areas in 2007 [17]. The IMO also adopted a helpful Guide for Cold Water Survival in 2012 [12, supra, Resolution 11 and Section B-V/g]. With regard to seafarers, IMO Member States used the opportunity of the review of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW) and related amendments to also include provisions regarding training for Arctic seafarers at a conference in Manila in 2010 . The Polar Code again cross-refers to these provisions.
In addition to its work on vessel safety prior to the Polar Code, the IMO had also addressed maritime safety matters in the Arctic from a larger infrastructural perspective. An important development was change in navigation and meteorological areas in the Arctic. In 2010 the IMO, working with other international organizations and Arctic States, expanded the World-Wide Navigational Warning System (WWNWS) into Arctic waters9 thereby extending crucial services for safe navigation and search and rescue. More recently, the IMO's MSCendorseda proposal from the United States to include the Iridium mobile satellite system, with its cover of polar regions, within the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)10 [18].
At a more localized level, the IMO has responded to specific requests by Arctic States for safety measures in the region. A mandatory ship reporting system for vessels of 5000 tons and over was adopted for the Barents Area (effective on 1 June 2013) on the basis of a proposal to the IMO by Norway and the Russian Federation 1 [19; 20]. Canada also requested the IMO to circulate among Member States information regarding the mandatory reporting system for ships entering Canadian Arctic waters, although not without controversy [21].
7 See: International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code) art. 18.5, in amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention and associated instruments (IMO Doc. MSC 93/3, 6 December 2013), Annex 6.
8 See: Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), Report on the Arctic MSI Services (IMO Doc. COMSAR 15/3/9, 23 December 2010).
9 See: Radiocommunications and Search and Rescue, Recognition of the Iridium Mobile-Satellite System (IMO Doc. MSC92/9/2, 9 April 2013).
10 Applicable to: all ships with a gross tonnage of 5,000 and above; all tankers; all ships carrying hazardous cargoes; a vessel towing when the length of the tow exceeds 200 metres; any ship not under command, restricted in their ability to manoeuvre or having defective navigational aids.
11 See: Information on the Mandatory Canadian Ship Reporting System in Canada's Northern Waters (NORDREG) (IMO Doc SN.1/Circ.291, 5 October 2010).
Industry has played an important and leading role in various fora, including the IMO, in the development of standards for polar shipping. Perhaps the most significant of these initiatives is the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)'s Requirements for Polar Class [22]. These standards form the backbone of key provisions of the Polar Code regarding construction and equipping standards. From a private law perspective, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) adopted useful model ice clauses for time and voyage charterparties [3, Report, supra].
3. FUTURE ISSUES?
Despite the flurry of regulatory and other international initiatives to address standards for polar shipping, there remain environmental and safety issues that will need to be addressed.
3.1. Environmental protection
As discussed above, the Polar Code's provisions on environment protection are limited to vessel-source pollution and primarily with regard to MARPOL coverage although, as noted earlier, the AMSA Report identified a broader range of threats to the Arctic marine environment (hereafter LLC) [23; 24]. Even within MARPOL, the Polar Code has not addressed atmospheric emissions issues which are known to be a problem for polar environments, such as black carbon. It remains incomprehensible that while heavy grade fuels are banned in Antarctic waters, their use as bunkers is not prohibited in Arctic waters. Arguably, the Arctic is subject to greater threats of potential bunkers' losses than the Antarctic because of the larger volume and diversity of shipping. Ballast water operations will also need to be addressed because the threat of introduction of exotic/alien species in Arctic waters is a real possibility. The known northward migration of various species is an indicator that species from different environments could adjust to Arctic waters. Underwater noise is a potential serious problem for a range of marine mammals and other species in a region not accustomed to high levels of anthropogenic noise. Similarly, the threats posed by ships to large marine mammals through ship strikes and threats to a range of other marine and terrestrial species as a result of icebreaking operations are potential issues.
3.2. Safety matters
3.2.1. Load Lines
Remarkably, the discussions on the Polar Codedid not consider how the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (LLC) might apply in the Arctic [25]. The Comité Maritime International (CMI) is currently studying gaps in polar shipping regulation, including load lines issues [5, supra, Chap. 4]. While the Polar Code takes into consideration requirements of the Intact Stability Code regarding icing on the superstructure that might affect vessel stability [23, supra], there is no further consideration of load lines for vessels in Arctic waters, also a stability concern. The LLC does not have an Arctic annex and the current appli-
cable load line is that established for the North Atlantic (North Atlantic Winter or NAW) [23, supra, Annex II].
The LLC is a key maritime safety convention. The LLC establishes load lines requirements for ships trading in different marine regions around the world
and with different seasonal loading requirementsso that vessels are not overload-
12
ed (see Figure 2) [26]. While ensuring safety, load lines have a direct impact on how much cargo can be carried, and therefore affects commercial operations. Seasonal requirements take into consideration the worse weather encountered in the winter. No such load lines have ever been established for the Arctic as a whole because at the time the LLC was negotiated international navigation and maritime trade in the Arctic were very limited and essentially domestic. Today there is growing shipping on international voyages through the Arctic, in particular the Northern Sea Route [27]. Moreover, vessels transiting the Northern Sea Route (NSR) generally commence their voyages in North Atlantic Waters, North Sea or Baltic Sea and terminate in the Sea of Japan or China Sea, and vice versa, essentially navigating different load line zone requirements. This appears to be also the case with IACS's Requirements for Polar Class, which refer to ice loads for polar class ships and provide for upper and lower ice waterlines, but do not address load lines 3.
In the absence of dedicated international "polar load lines" shipowners utilize the North Atlantic Winter Zone 1 (NAW 1) and North Atlantic Winter 2 (NAW 2) load lines for international shipping in the Arctic. The definition of NAW1 extends into the Arctic only to Eastern Greenland's waters. The definition of NAW2 does not extend to Arctic waters14 [23]. Thus the general NAW load line was not expressly intended to apply for much of the Arctic15 [23].
12 For example, see transit statistics for the Northern Sea Route.
13 "The North Atlantic Winter Seasonal Zone II lies within the meridian of longitude 68°30'W from the coast of the United States to latitude 40°N, thence the rhumb line to the point latitude 36°N, longitude 73°W, thence the parallel of latitude 36°N to longitude 25°W and thence the rhumb line to Cape Torinana." "Excluded from this zone are the North Atlantic Winter Seasonal Zone I, the North Atlantic Winter Seasonal Area and the Baltic Sea bounded by the parallel of latitude of the Skaw in the Skagerrak. The Shetland Islands are to be considered as being on the boundary of the North Atlantic Winter Seasonal Zones I and II" [23, supra, Annex II, reg. 46(1)]. Similarly unhelpful is the North Atlantic Seasonal Area, defined as "is the meridian of longitude 68°30'W from the coast of the United States to latitude 40°N, thence the rhumb line to the southernmost intersection of the meridian of longitude 61°W with the coast of Canada and thence the east coasts of Canada and the United States" [23, reg. 46(2)].
14 "The part of the North Atlantic referred to in Regulation 40 (6) (Annex I) comprises:
(a) that part of the North Atlantic Winter Seasonal Zone II which lies between the meridians of 15°W and 50°W;
(b) the whole of the North Atlantic Winter Seasonal Zone I, the Shetland Islands to be considered as being on the boundary".
15 Annex II, art., 52. Art. 40(6) provides the Winter North Atlantic freeboard as follows: "The minimum freeboard for ships of not more than 100 m in length which enter any part of the North Atlantic defined in regulation 52 (Annex II) during the winter seasonal period shall be the winter freeboard plus 50 mm. For other ships, the winter North Atlantic freeboard shall be the winter freeboard".
In future discussions on polar load lines an interesting question will relate to whether the Arctic Ocean should have a dedicated system of zones and seasons, reflecting the navigable periods and different water and ice regimes. The LLC permits special rules that may be drawn up by all or some States by agreement, but in accordance with the Convention [23, art. 25]. This could be of interest to Arctic States, should they decide that polar load lines are needed. Should they agree on regional special rules, the LLC requires them to communicate these to the IMO for circulation to other State Parties [23, art. 25].
IT ИГ 1>F 1ИГ ltt
Chan el'&nJ Sriionil Artat
Fig. 2. Load Lines Convention Source: LLC, fn 53
3.2.2. Collision avoidance regulations
A different safety issue in the Arctic is the application of the rules of the road set out in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS) [28]. As traffic in the Arctic increases, the steering and sailing rules will become important because they are central to the standard of good seamanship and provide guidance for vessels navigating in close proximity to each other.These rules were developed with open waters in mind, which may not be the case in polar navigation and is a fact specifically recognized in the Polar Code. Thus a ship that is breaking ice or is following the channel cleared by an icebreaker or which is navigating in an area of 1/10 ice presence (which may include icebergs and growlers) is not navigating in open water. Indeed, that vessel may be searching for open water for safer navigation. Where a ship is on a potential collision avoidance course, the applicable collision avoidance rule might not be easily applied if the ship, in changing direction, may be steering into further danger. The technology is also changing. Recently
FEDNAV, a Canadian company, reported that they successfully employed a drone (unmanned air vehicle) to assist a ship navigating in the Canadian Arctic [29]. This is interesting because this technology could add a new dimension to the concept of proper lookout in the COLREGS when applied to polar naviga-tion16 [28, supra, rule 5].
The Polar Code provides guidance only with regard to icebreaking operations, but proposes no adaptation of any of the COLREGS standards. The only mandatory rule concerns "suitable means of communications shall be provided where escort and convoy operations are expected" [5, supra, Chap. 10, reg. 10.2.1.2] and in the PWOM, which may vary from vessel to vessel [5, Appendix 2]. Much of the Code's content on convoys is in the recommendations in Part II-A. Unless excluded, the COLREGSwill apply, but they do not include sailing rules on navigation in convoys17 [28, supra, Part A, rule 1(c)]. It is unclear whether the COLREGS take precedence over the Polar Code's Part II-A, because while the former are mandatory and the latter are recommendations, good sense suggests otherwise. The action to avoid collision in COLREGS is a duty and a decision taken on each vessel on a collision course; in a convoy situation the ship in convoy may receive instructions from the icebreaker. But the responsibility for the ultimate decision affecting the safety of the vessel rests with the master. The COLREGS do not exempt the master "from consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case" [28, rule 2(1)].
4. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, a number of final observations can be made. First, although long in coming, the Polar Code is an important package of standards adopted at the global level for regional application. It is at the centre of a suite of IMO regulatory initiatives addressing particular navigation conditions and needs in polar regions. There are now higher standards for the protection of crews and passengers. Although falling short of expectations, the Arctic marine environment will still receive a higher level of protection than the currently applicable minimum under MARPOL. Most importantly, the higher standards will apply to all flags
16 "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision".
17 In fact convoy navigation is set apart for national, rather than international regulation: "Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of any special rules made by the Government of any State with respect to additional station or signal lights, shapes or whistle signals for ships of war and vessels proceeding under convoy, or with respect to additional station or signal lights or shapes for fishing vessels engaged in fishing as a fleet. These additional station or signal lights, shapes or whistle signals shall, so far as possible, be such that they cannot be mistaken for any light, shape or signal authorised elsewhere under these Rules" (emphasis added).
(or at least to flags of SOLAS and MARPOL State parties) in operation in polar waters. Even so, we can expect continued pressure to raise this level of protection to even higher levels to better protect the Arctic marine environment from the impacts of international shipping.
Second, like all previous IMO regulatory initiatives, the Polar Codeis a "first generation" instrument on international polar regulation. There will be much to be learned from experience of implementation and application of the rules and visible gaps. This author believes that in the interests of maritime safety the IMO will likely have to address load lines and collision avoidance regulations to bring them into harmony with the Polar Code, or vice versa. Thankfully, the IMO has well developed procedures for updating international rules and standards through the tacit acceptance process of treaty-based rules and non-mandatory instruments.
Third, it is unclear whether the current content of the Polar Code fulfills the expectations of Canada and the Russian Federation, the two jurisdictions with specific regulations for Arctic shipping and perhaps with the most direct interest in the potential impact of international rules on national regulation. It is conceivable that they might retain portions of their national regulations that are perceived to better reflect their interests. They have used and will continue to use the special legislative and enforcement jurisdiction for ice-covered areas granted to them by the LOS Convention [1, supra, art. 234]. They are in a position to legally justify higher standards than the international rules on this special jurisdictional basis.The Polar Code's amendments to SOLAS are clear that "[N]othing in this chapter [i.e., XIV] shall prejudice the rights or obligations of States under international law" [5, Annex 23, supra, reg. 2(5)]. If this occurs, then there remains the issue of divergence of regulatory regimes for Arctic shipping.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. 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.
2. List of IMO Conventions [Electronic resource] : Related Protocols are referred to under the main Convention. - Access: http://www.imo.org/About /Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx.
3. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) (Arctic Council, 2009) [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.pame.is/amsa-2009-report.
4. Draft Report of the Maritime Safety Committee at its Ninety-Fourth Session, IMO Doc. MSC 94/WP.1, 21 November 2014 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://imla.co/sites/default/files/msc_94-wp.1_-_draft_report_of_the_mari time_safety_committee_on_its_ninety-fourth_session_secretariat.pdf.
5. Annex 23: Draft New SOLAS Chapter XIV IMO Doc. MSC 93/22/Add.3, 9 June 2014 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MSC-93-report-annexes-18-to-32.pdf.
6. Annex 24: Draft International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/ 02/MSC-93-report-annexes-18-to-32.pdf.
7. IMO adopts mandatory Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings /Pages/38-nmsc94polar.aspx#.VIHo8NLF-So.
8. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 : adoption London, 1 November 1974. 1184 UNTS 2 [Electronic resource]. -Access: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Inter national-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx.
9. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) : Adoption: 1973 (Convention), 1978 (1978 Protocol), 1997 (Protocol - Annex VI); Entry into force: 2 October 1983 (Annexes I and II). 1340 UNTS 62 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.imo.org/About/Conven tions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx.
10. Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters, IMO Doc. MSC/Circ.1056 & MEPC/Circ. 399, 23 December 2002 [Electronic resource]. -Access: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_1056-MEPC-Circ399.pdf.
11. Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, Resolution A.1024(26), 2 December 2009, IMO Doc. A 26/Res.1024 18 January 2010 // Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters. - 2010 edition. Electronic edition. - London : IMO, 2010 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.imo.org/Publications/ Documents/Attachments/Pages%20from%20E 190E.pdf.
12. International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), London, 7 July 1978, 1361 UNTS 2, as amended by the Manila Amendments, Final Act of the Conference of the Parties, IMO Doc. STCW/CONF.2/33, 1 July 2010) [Electronic resource] - Access: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/HumanElement/TrainingCertification/Pages/STC W-C onventi on.aspx.
13. International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, London, 13 February 2004, (not in force) // International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, IMO Doc. BWM/CONF/36, 16 February 2004 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/Projects /ALIENS%203/International%20Convention%20for%20the%20Control%20and %20Management%20of%20Ship%E2%80%99s%20Ballast%20Water%20and% 20Sediments,%202004.pdf.
14. International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, London, 5 October 2001 (in force 17 September 2008), ATNIF 2002 No. 18 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.jus.uio.no/ eng-lish/services/library/treaties/06/6-05/harmful-anti-fouling-ships.xml.
15. Intact Stability Code, IMO Doc. MSC 85/26/Add.1/Annex 2, 4 December 2008 [Electronic resource] // Report of the Maritime Safety
Committee on its Eighty-Fifth Session. - Access: http://www.mpa.gov.sg/ sites/pdf/MSC_85-26-Add.1.pdf .
16. Guidelines on Voyage Planning for Passenger Ships Operating in Remote Areas, IMO Doc. A25/Res.999, 3 January 2008 [Electronic resource]. -Access: http://download.odessacrewing.com/IM0%20Resolution/Assembly% 20Resolutions/A999(25).pdf.
17. Guide to Cold Water Survival, IMO Doc. MSC.1/Circ.1185, 31 May 2006 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.pomorci.com/Propisi/1-20/Guide%20to%20cold%20water%20survival.pdf.
18. Adoption of a New Mandatory Ship Reporting System in the Barents Area (Barents SRS), Resolution MSC.348(91), 28 November 2012, IMO Doc. MSC 91/22/Add.2, Annex 27 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Documents/MS C%20-%20Maritime%20Safety/348(91).pdf.
19. Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations, Submitted by the United States and INTERTANKO, IMO Doc. MSC 88/11/2, 22 September 2010 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.intertanko.com/Global/MS C%2088-11-2.pdf.
20. Comments on document MSC 88/11/2 Submitted by Canada, IMO Doc. MSC 88/11/3, 5 October 2010 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.mter tanko.com/Global/MSC%2088-11-2.pdf.
21. Requirements Concerning Polar Class, IACS Req. 2011 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/Publications /Unified_requirements/PDF/UR_I_pdf410.pdf.
22. BIMCO [Electronic resource]. - Access: https://www.bimco.org/ Chartering/Clauses_and_Documents/Clauses.aspx.
23. International Convention on Load Lines (LLS), London, 5 April 1966 (in force 21 July 1968), 640 UNTS 133 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Load-Lines.aspx.
24. Protocol of 1988, 2 UST 102 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://en.io.gov.mo/Legis/International/record/728.aspx.
25. See CMI International Working Group on Polar Shipping [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.comitemaritime.org/Polar-Shipping/0,2793,193 32,00.html.
26. Northern Sea Route [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.arctic-lio.com/nsr_transits.
27. Requirements Concerning Polar Class [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/publications/unified_requirements/pdfZu r_i_pdf410.pdf.
28. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), London 20 October 1972, 1050 UNTS 16 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.imcbrokers.com/frontend/files/userfiles/ imag-es/2008/07/colreg-explanatory-notes.pdf.
29. FEDNAV Pioneers the Use of Drones in Polar Shipping, 25 March 2014 [Electronic resource]. - Access: http://www.fednav.com/en/media/fednav-pioneers-use-drones-polar-shipping.
REFERENCES
1. 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.
2. List of IMO Conventions: Related Protocols are referred to under the main Convention. Available at: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOf Con-ventions/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed 21April 2015).
3. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment(AMSA) (Arctic Council, 2009). Available at: http://www.pame.is/amsa-2009-report (accessed 21April 2015).
4. Draft Report of the Maritime Safety Committee at its Ninety-Fourth Session, IMO Doc. MSC 94/WP.1, 21 November 2014. Available at: http://imla.co /sites/default/files/msc_94-wp.1_-_draft_report_of_the_maritime_safety_co mmittee_on_its_ninety-fourth_session_secretariat.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
5. Annex 23: Draft New SOLAS Chapter XI,. IMO Doc. MSC 93/22/Add.3, 9 June 2014. Available at: http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ MSC-93-report-annexes-18-to-32.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
6. Annex 24: Draft International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters. Available at: http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MSC-93-report-annexes-18-to-32.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
7. IMO adopts mandatory Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters. Available at: http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/38-nmsc94polar. aspx#.VI Ho8NLF-So (accessed 21April 2015).
8. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974: adoption London, 1 November 1974. 1184 UNTS 2. Available at: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx (accessed 21 April 2015).
9. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL): Adoption: 1973 (Convention), 1978 (1978 Protocol), 1997 (Protocol - Annex VI); Entry into force: 2 October 1983 (Annexes I and II). 1340 UNTS 62. Available at: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/listofconventions /pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx (accessed 21April 2015).
10. Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters, IMO Doc. MSC/Circ.1056 & MEPC/Circ. 399, 23 December 2002. Available at: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_1056-MEPC-Circ399.pdf (accessed 21 April 2015).
11. Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, Resolution A.1024 (26), 2 December 2009, IMO Doc. A 26/Res.1024 18 January 2010. Guidelines for
Ships Operating in Polar Waters. - 2010 edition. Electronic edition. - London: IMO, 2010. Available at: http://www.imo.org/Publications/Documents /Attachments/Pages%20from%20E190E.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
12. International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), London, 7 July 1978, 1361 UNTS 2, as amended by the Manila Amendments, Final Act of the Conference of the Parties, IMO Doc. STCW/CONF.2/33, 1 July 2010). Available at: http://www.imo.org/ OurWork/HumanElement/TrainingCertification/Pages/STCW-Convention.aspx (accessed 21April 2015).
13. International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, London, 13 February 2004, (not in force). International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, IMO Doc. BWM/CONF/36, 16 February 2004. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/Projects/ALIENS% 203/International%20Convention%20for%20the%20Control%20and%20Manag ement%20of%20Ship%E2%80%99s%20Ballast%20Water%20and%20Sediment s,%202004.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
14. International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, London, 5 October 2001 (in force 17 September 2008), ATNIF 2002 No. 18. Available at: http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services /library/treaties/06/6-05/harmful-anti-fouling-ships.xml (accessed 21April 2015).
15. Intact Stability Code, IMO Doc. MSC 85/26/Add.1/Annex 2, 4 December 2008. Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its Eighty-Fifth Session. Available at: http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/pdf/MSC_85-26-Add.Lpdf (accessed 21April 2015).
16. Guidelines on Voyage Planning for Passenger Ships Operating in Remote Areas, IMO Doc. A25/Res.999, 3 January 2008. Available at: http://download.odessacrewing.com/IMO%20Resolution/Assembly%20Resoluti ons/A999(25).pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
17. Guide to Cold Water Survival, IMO Doc. MSC.1/Circ.1185, 31 May 2006. Available at: http://www.pomorci.com/Propisi/1-20/Guide%20to%20cold %20water%20survival.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
18. Adoption of a New Mandatory Ship Reporting System in the Barents Area (Barents SRS), Resolution MSC. 348 (91), 28 November 2012, IMO Doc. MSC 91/22/Add.2, Annex 27. Available at: http://www.imo.org/Knowledge Centre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Documents/MSC%20-%20Maritime%20Safety/348(91).pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
19. Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations, Submitted by the United States and INTERTANKO, IMO Doc. MSC 88/11/2, 22 September 2010. Available at: http://www.intertanko.com/Global/MSC%2088-11-2.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
20. Comments on document MSC 88/11/2 Submitted by Canada, IMO Doc. MSC 88/11/3, 5 October 2010. Available at: http://www.intertanko.com/ Glob-al/MSC%2088-11-2.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
Н.К. Харлампьева
21. Requirements Concerning Polar Class, IACS Req. 2011. Available at: http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/Publications/Unified_requirements/PDF /UR_I_pdf410.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
22. BIMCO. Available at: https://www.bimco.org/Chartering/Clau ses_and_Documents/Clauses.aspx (accessed 21April 2015).
23. International Convention on Load Lines (LLS), London, 5 April 1966 (in force 21 July 1968), 640 UNTS 133. Available at: http://www.imo. org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Load-Lines.aspx (accessed 21April 2015).
24. Protocol of 1988, 2 UST 102. Available at: http://en.io.gov.mo/Legis /International/record/728.aspx (accessed 21April 2015).
25. CMI International Working Group on Polar Shipping. Available at: http://www.comitemaritime.org/Polar-Shipping/0,2793,19332,00.html (accessed 21April 2015).
26. Northern Sea Route. Available at: http://www.arctic-lio.com/nsr_transits (accessed 21April 2015).
27. Requirements Concerning Polar Class. Available at: http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/publications/unified_requirements/pdfZu r_i_pdf410.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
28. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), London 20 October 1972, 1050 UNTS 16. Available at: http://www.imcbrokers.com/frontend/files/userfiles/images/2008/07/colreg-explanatory-notes.pdf (accessed 21April 2015).
29. FEDNAV Pioneers the Use of Drones in Polar Shipping, 25 March 2014. Available at: http://www.fednav.com/en/media/fednav-pioneers-use-drones-polar-shipping (accessed 21April 2015).
Харлампьева Надежда Климовна, кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры мировой политики Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета, г. Санкт-Петербург, Россия. E-mail: nkhar@mail.sir.edu
АРКТИЧЕСКАЯ МОРСКАЯ ТРАНСПОРТНАЯ СИСТЕМА: МЕЖДУНАРОДНО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ АСПЕКТ
Изучение политических аспектов процесса формирования Арктической морской транспортной системы как международный научно-исследовательский проект представлено для тех, кто готов включиться в обсуждение о международном сотрудничестве по вопросам эволюционно-инновационной парадигмы Арктики и ее включения в мирохозяйственные связи. Международно-научный проект состоит из следующих частей: методологии исследования, политико-исторического экскурса создания Арктической морской транспортной системы (АМТС) XXI в., обоснования экономи-
