Выпуск №2

The Legal Aspects of the Establishment of the Outer Limits of Continental Shelf in the Arctic by the United States

Авторы:

Valentin A. Koshkin

---

Информация о статье:

Тип статьи: юриспруденция

---

Для цитирования:

V. A. Koshkin, The Legal Aspects of the Establishment of the Outer Limits of Continental Shelf in the Arctic by the United States, Ural Journal of Legal Research, 2021, No. 2. pp. 46–62. DOI 10.34076/2658_512X_2021_2_46.

---

Аннотация:

All the Arctic states: Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, with the exception of the United States, have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and have already submitted applications to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to expand the outer boundaries of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The USA’s refusal to sign the Convention raises uncertainty about the United States’ rights to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, according to customary international law in the Arctic. The issue of US access to the CLCS procedure remains open. The article analyzes the provisions of Article 76 of UNCLOS, which defines the current regime of the continental shelf, in order to determine which of the provisions relate to customary international law. Having the status of customary law, these provisions will apply both to the parties of the Convention and to countries that have not adhered to it, including the United States. This article also briefly considers decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Review of current government practice and US official statements regarding the continental shelf regime are conducted. The author concludes that some of the provisions of the continental shelf regime of UNCLOS reflect customary international law and are applicable to the United States. Through customary law, the United States is entitled to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic. At the same time, it cannot be stated with complete certainty that the provisions establishing the criteria and methods for determining the location of the outer border of the continental margin reflect the norms of customary international law. Moreover, the 1982 Convention does not provide rights or obligations for non-parties of the Convention to submit submissions with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

---

Список цитируемой литературы:

1. Nevitt M. Climate change, Arctic security and why the U.S. should join the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2020. URL: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/10524-climate-changearctic-security-and-why-the-us (дата обращения: 15.01.2021).

2. Kolcz-Ryan M. An Arctic Race: How the United States’ Failure to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention could Adversely Affect its Interests in the Arctic. University of Dayton Law Review. 2009. Vol. 35. P. 149-173.

3. Moore J. N. and William L. S. Jr. The Senate should give immediate advice and consent to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: why the critics are wrong. Journal of International Affairs. 2005. Vol. 59. no.1. P.1-23.

4. National Security Council. Implementation Plan for The National Strategy for the Arctic Region . The White House: Washington, D.C., January 31, 2014, P.29. URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/implementation_plan_for_the_national_strategy_ for_the_arctic_region_-_fi....pdf. (дата обращения: 15.01.2021).

5. Delineating the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf. URL: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/ coastal-marine-hazards-and-resources/science/delineating-us-extended-continental?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects (дата обращения: 15.01.2021).

6. The White House, “National Strategy for the Arctic Region,” 2013, p. 10, available at www. whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf (дата обращения: 15.01.2021).

7. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Art. 76 (3).

8. Lodge M. The International Seabed Authority and Article 82 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2006. 21. P. 323-333.

9. ICJ. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands). Judgment of 20 February 1969 // I.C.J. Reports. 1969. § 19.

10. The Convention on the Continental Shelf. Art. 2(3).

11. ILA Committee on Legal Issues of the OCS. 2006. Conclusion No. 1.

12. McDorman T.L. The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 NM: Law and Politics in the Arctic Ocean. The Journal of Transnational Law and Policy. 2008. 18. P. 155-194.

13. ICJ. Continental shelf (Tunisia/Libian Arab Jamahiriya). Judgement of 14 April 1981 // I.C.J. Reports. 1981. § 47.

14. ITLOS. Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. Judgement of 14 March 2012 // ITLOS Reports. 2012. § 435, 437.

15. ICJ. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). Judgment of 19 November 2012. // I.C.J. Reports. 2012. § 118.

16. ICJ. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). Declaration of ad-hoc Judge Mensah. 2012. § 7.

17. ICJ. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area. Judgment. // I.C.J. Reports 1984, P. 246.

18. ITLOS. Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. Judgement of 14 March 2012 // ITLOS Reports. 2012. § 408- 409.

19. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Art. 31(1).

20. ILA Committee on Legal Issues of the OCS.2006. Conclusion No. 16.

21. Doc. SPLOS/183, Decision regarding the workload of the Commission and the ability of States to fulfil the requirements of Article 4 of Annex II (20 June 2008);

22. Doc SPLOS/64, Issues with respect to article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1 May 2001).

23. Oude Elferink, Alex G. The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf in the Polar Regions. The Law of the Sea and the Polar Regions. 2013.Vol.76. P. 61-84.

24. McDorman, T.L. The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. Vol. 17. 2002. № 3. P. 301-324.

25. Annex II of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Art.3.

26. McDorman T.L. The Outer Continental Shelf Limits in the Arctic Ocean: Legal Framework and Recent Developments. In Vidas, Davor (ed.) Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation. Leiden, Brill/Martinus Nijhoff. 2010. 21

27. ILA Committee on Legal Issues of the OCS. 2006. Conclusion No. 10.

28. Annex II of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Art. 6(3).

29. Treves T. Remarks on Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Response to Judge Marotta’s Report. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2006. Vol. 21. P. 363-267.

30. Roach, J. Ashley and Robert W. Smith, Excessive Maritime Claims. 3rd ed. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff. 2012. Vol. 73. 925 p.

31. McLaughlin R.J. Hydrocarbon Development in the Ultra-Deepwater Boundary Region of the Gulf of Mexico: Time to Reexamine a Comprehensive U.S.-Mexico Cooperation Agreement. Ocean Development and International Law. 2008. 39. P. 165-187.

32. Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Western Gulf of Mexico Beyond 200 Nautical Miles. URL: https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/39/document-text (дата обращения: 15.01.2021).

33. Mayer L., Jakobsson M. and Armstrong A. The Compilation and Analysis of Data Relevant to a US Claim Under United Nations Law of the Sea Article 76: A Preliminary Report. 2002. 94 p.

34. Western Planning Area, Oil & Gas Lease Sale 207 (20 August 2008) Final Notice of Sale, Stipulation No. 4, reproduced in International Seabed Authority (2009), Technical Study 4, pp. 7-8 (Box 1).

35. McDorman T.L. The Entry into Force of the 1982 LOS Convention and the Article 76 Outer Continental Shelf Regime. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 1995. 10. P. 165-187.

36. Report of the Eighth Meeting of States Parties. SPLOS/31 of 4 June 1998. 12. § 51-52.

37. ‘A Constitution for the Oceans’, remarks by Tommy T.B. Koh, of Singapore, President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. URL: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/ convention_agreements/texts/koh_english.pdf (дата обращения: 15.01.2021).

38. Nordquist M. H. (ed.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary. 1993.Vol. 2.

39. Kwiatkowska B. Creeping Jurisdiction Beyond 200 Miles in the Light of the 1982 Law of the Sea. Ocean Development and International Law. 1991. 22. P. 153-187.

40. Clingan Jr., Thomas A. The Law of the Sea in Prospective: Problems of States not Parties to the Law of the Sea Treaty. German Yearbook of International Law. 1988. Vol. 30. P. 101-119.

41. Franckx E. The International Seabed Authority and the Common Heritage of Mankind: The Need For States to Establish the Outer Limits of their Continental Shelf. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2010. 25. P. 543 – 567.

42. Eiriksson G. The Case of Disagreement Between a Coastal State and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, in Nordquist, Myron H., John Norton Moore and Thomas H. Heidar (eds.) Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff. 2004. Nevitt M. Climate change, Arctic security and why the U.S. should join the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2020. URL: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/10524- climate-change-arctic-security-and-why-the-us (дата обращения: 15.01.2021)

---

Ключевые слова:

USA, Arctic, continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, customary international law, UNCLOS, CLCS, submission

---

Полный текст статьи