Polar Geopolitics: Controlling the Arctic Together or Separately?
Prepared by Volkova Sofia, Diana Khairutdinova,
Anna Filchakova, Anna Mikhailova,
Eugene Akulov, Eugenia Zubko,
and Milana Korneva
“The Arctic is a complex region which cannot be designated with a single status,”[1] - that is how the words of Kamrul Hossain, professor and director of the Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law at the University of Lapland, sound in order to underline the current state of affairs with the Arctic region’s international legal status. Indeed, it is a unique territory in terms of a single international governance regime’s absence[2]. The Arctic is the northern polar region of the Earth, its area is about 27 million square kilometers[3]. However, taking into account that the region is full of natural resources and growing climate, geostrategic, transit and economic potential[4], there is still no unified approach among the states, and the region is separated on sectors of responsibility among the countries which "border" the Arctic, including Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark and the United States. Three other countries - Iceland, Sweden and Finland - do not have oceanic borders with the region, but consider themselves as being subarctic as well[5][6]. Therefore, all other non-Arctic states are limited in their ability to exploit the resources. In this case, it is of the entire international community’s interests to define the legal regime and norms administering the Arctic region. The given paper is an attempt to address the problem by undertaking a comparative analysis in order to figure out which option will serve as the most suitable one for the sustainable development of the Arctic region: status quo or internationalization, in other words, transfer under international organizations’ control.
The paper proceeds with the following structure: first, territorial regulation of Arctic countries is considered together with the examination of the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and two current cases of territorial disputes. Second, four main international organizations, whose aim is to provide effective cooperation between the states and to help non-state actors to participate in the development of the Arctic region, are described in detail. Third, comparative analysis of options is conducted using speed of decision making and amount of control criteria. Finally, the conclusion on the main arguments and key ideas mentioned is drawn together with the future perspectives’ designation.
UN Convention (1982) as a mechanism for resolving territorial issues
In 1982, the latest version of universal legal regulation of the world sea areas was introduced – the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This Convention directly regulates the state’s activities in the Arctic Ocean area, which is a part of the Arctic region[7]. It proposed the exclusive delimitation of the international and sovereign territories of the sea. According to the Convention, the state has a right on the sovereignty and jurisdiction beyond the territory, which is 12 sea miles from the coastline[8]. Also, the state possesses sovereign rights for economic activities and to exercise jurisdiction over marine science research/environmental protection in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ)[9]. The North Pole and other off shelf zones stay international. Thus, the five surrounding Arctic countries (Russia, Canada, The USA, Denmark, Norway) get the restriction on activity beyond the Arctic Ocean area. But the states which ratified the Convention have the ability to ask for the extension of sea area beyond their EEZ[10]. Among these states, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark ratified the Convention (1982) and applied for the extension of territory of legal activity. The USA still did not ratify the Convention (1982), because some of its aspects did not meet with the economic and security interests of the U.S[11]. Thus, we see that the Convention (1982) does not work perfectly. Because one of the five countries surrounding the Arctic not ratify the Convention, therefore not fulfilling its restrictions unlike other states, it appears that determining the Arctic shelf without one player will not be fair[12].
Nowadays, we face the examples of territorial disputes (both solved and not solved), which additionally illustrate the necessity for the revision of current legal regulations of the Arctic territories. Further, the observation of several cases will be presented.
1. The case of Hans Island. The current dispute over the right on territorial sovereignty over the land is a dispute between Canada and Denmark over the island of Hans. The island has an area of 1.3 km, located between Ellesmere Island and Greenland[13]. According to the Law of the Sea, each of them can claim on territory within 22.2 km from the coast. Therefore, Hans Island is technically located in both Danish and Canadian waters. But this does not solve the problem and the countries continue to fight for the small island[14].
In 2011, two main options for solving this problem were identified: “joint management of the island by two countries (condominium) and division of the island along a line passing through its geographical center” [15].
The given dispute shows the strategic importance not only for its direct participants but also for all Arctic countries, since this conflict can have a significant impact on future conflicts regarding the Arctic territories, constituting a precedent.[16]
2. The case of Lomonosov ridge. The subject of territorial disputes, the Lomonosov ridge, is claimed by several countries at once. Russia was the first who applied for the border expansion. The application was submitted to the UN in December 2001 and was renewed in 2015 because UN did not reject or approve the application[17]. Further, Canada joined this dispute. In 2008-2009, in order to prove that the ridge belongs to the North American continental platform, joint American-Canadian studies were conducted to study the shelf [18], and proved that the Lomonosov ridge is a natural extension of the American continent[19]. Consequently, an application was submitted to the UN to expand the external borders of Canada. Additionally, Denmark has issued such an application with scientific evidences, which proved that "the continental shelf of Greenland is directly related to structures on the ocean floor"[20]. At the moment, this territorial dispute has not been resolved in favor of any country.
It can be said that the mechanisms of the Convention (1982) do not work properly in the Arctic. Most researchers question "the applicability of the Convention (1982) to the centuries-old ice north of the 200-mile exclusive economic zones of the five Arctic states"[21]. It requires an individual approach to each request, as well as the use of a new alternative approach in this territorial conflict and common efforts.