Under
international law, no country currently owns the
North Pole or the region of the
Arctic Ocean surrounding it. The five surrounding
Arctic
countries,
the Russian Federation, the
United States (via
Alaska),
Canada,
Norway
and
Denmark (via
Greenland), are limited to an
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200
nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) adjacent to their coasts.
Upon ratification of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country
has a ten-year period to make claims to an extended
continental shelf which, if validated, gives it exclusive rights to
resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area.[1]
Norway (ratified the convention in 1996[2]),
Russia (ratified in 1997[2]),
Canada (ratified in 2003[2])
and Denmark (ratified in 2004[2])
launched projects to provide a basis for seabed claims on extended
continental shelves beyond their exclusive economic zones. The United
States has signed, but
not yet ratified the UNCLOS.[3][4]
The status of certain portions of the Arctic sea region are in
dispute for various reasons. Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian
Federation and the United States all regard parts of the Arctic seas as
"national waters" (territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles (22 km))
or "internal
waters". There also are disputes regarding what passages constitute
"international seaways" and rights to passage along them (see
Northwest Passage).
North
Pole and the Arctic Ocean
National Sectors: 1925–2005
Cold War-era postcard marking Soviet activity in the Arctic
and Antarctic.
In 1925, based upon the
Sector Principle, Canada became the first country to extend its
maritime boundaries northward to the North Pole, at least on paper,
between 60°W and 141°W
longitude, a claim that is not universally recognized (there are in
fact 415 nmi (769 km; 478 mi) of ocean between the Pole and Canada's
northernmost land point).[5]
In 1926 Russia fixed its claim in Soviet law (32°04′35″E to
168°49′30″W).[6]
Norway (5°E to 35°E) made similar sector claims — as did the United
States (170°W to 141°W), but that sector contained only a few islands so
the claim was not pressed. Denmark's sovereignty over all of Greenland
was recognized by the United States in 1916 and by an international
court in 1933. Denmark could also conceivably claim an Arctic sector
(60°W to 10°W).[5]
In the context of the
Cold
War, Canada sent
Inuit
families to the far north in the
High Arctic relocation, partly to establish territoriality.[7]
In addition, Canada claims the water within the
Canadian Arctic Archipelago as its
own internal waters. The United States is one of the countries which
does not recognize Canada's, or any other countries', Arctic
archipelagic water claims, and has allegedly sent nuclear
submarines under the ice near Canadian islands without requesting
permission.[citation
needed]
On April 15, 1926, the
Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the
USSR declared the territory between two lines (roughly 32°E and
169°W) drawn from west of
Murmansk to the North Pole and from the eastern
Chukchi Peninsula to the North Pole to be Soviet territory.[8]
Until 1999, the North Pole and the major part of the Arctic Ocean had
been generally considered to comprise international space, including
both the waters and the sea bottom. However, both the adoption of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as well as global
climate change causing the
polar ice seasonally to recede farther than expected due to
global warming[citation
needed] has prompted several countries to claim or
to reinforce pre-existing claims to the waters or seabed of the polar
region.
Extended Continental Shelf Claims: 2006–present
Overview
As defined by the UNCLOS, states have ten years from the date of
ratification to make claims to an extended continental shelf. On this
basis the five states fronting the Arctic Ocean - Canada, Denmark,
Norway, the Russian Federation, and the U.S. - must make any desired
claims by 2013, 2014, 2006, and 2007 respectively. Since the U.S. has
yet to ratify the UNCLOS, the date for its submission is undetermined at
this time.
Claims to extended continental shelves, if deemed valid, give the
claimant state exclusive rights to the sea bottom and resources below
the bottom. Valid extended continental shelf claims do not and cannot
extend a state's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) since the EEZ is
determined solely by drawing a 200-nautical-mile (370 km) line using
territorial sea baselines as their starting point. This point is made
because press reports often confuse the facts and assert that extended
continental shelf claims expand a state's EEZ thereby giving a state
exclusive rights to not only sea bottom and below resources but also to
those in the water column. The Arctic chart prepared by Durham
University (see Further Reading reference) clearly illustrates the
extent of the uncontested Exclusive Economic Zones of the five states
bordering the Arctic Ocean and also the relatively small expanse of
remaining "high seas" or totally international waters at the very North
of the planet.
Specific nations
Canada
As of July 2001, Canada has not filed an official claim to an
extended continental shelf with the UN Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf. Canada has through 2013 to file such a claim.
In response to the Russian
Arktika 2007 expedition,
Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister
Peter MacKay said the following:
This is posturing. This is the true north strong and free, and
they're fooling themselves if they think dropping a flag on the
ocean floor is going to change anything. There is no question
over Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. We've made that very
clear. We've established - a long time ago - that these are
Canadian waters and this is Canadian property. You can't go
around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere. This
isn't the 14th or 15th century.
In response to MacKay's comments,
Sergey Lavrov, the Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated:
I read reports of the statements made by my Canadian colleague,
Peter MacKay. I know him quite well – it’s very unlike him. I
was sincerely astonished by "flag planting." No one engages in
flag planting. When pioneers reach a point hitherto unexplored
by anybody, it is customary to leave flags there. Such was the
case on the Moon, by the way. As to the legal aspect of the
matter, we from the outset said that this expedition was part of
the big work being carried out under the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea, within the international authority where
Russia’s claim to submerged ridges which we believe to be an
extension of our shelf is being considered. We know that this
has to be proved. The ground samples that were taken will serve
the work to prepare that evidence.
[9]
On September 25, 2007,
Prime Minister
Stephen Harper said, "President Putin assured me that he meant no
offence, ... nor any intention to violate any international
understanding or any Canadian sovereignty in any way."[10][11]
Prime Minister Harper has also promised to defend Canada's claimed
sovereignty by building and operating up to eight
Arctic patrol ships, a new army training centre in
Resolute Bay, and the refurbishing of an existing deepwater port at
a former mining site in
Nanisivik.[12]
Denmark
Denmark ratified the extended continental shelf claim to
UNCLOS on November 16, 2004. The Kingdom of Denmark declared that
the Danish straits including the Great Belt, the Little Belt, and the
Danish part of the Sound, formed on the foundation of the Copenhagen
Treaty of 1857 are legally Danish territory. As set out in the treaty
section of the
United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, it should remain so.[13]
The Danish autonomous province of Greenland has the nearest coastline
to the North Pole, and Denmark argues that the
Lomonosov Ridge is in fact an extension of Greenland. Danish project
included
LORITA-1 expedition in April–May 2006[14]
and included tectonic research during
LOMROG expedition, which were part of the 2007-2008 International
Polar Year program.[15]
It comprised the
Swedish
icebreaker
Oden and Russian nuclear icebreaker
NS 50 Let Pobedy. The latter led the expedition through the
ice fields to the research location.[16]
Further efforts at geological study in the region were carried out by
the LOMROG II expedition, which took place in 2009, and the LOMROG III
expedition, launched in 2012.[17][18]
Norway
Norway ratified the UNCLOS in late 1996 and on November 27, 2006,
Norway
made an official submission into the UN Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf in accordance with the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (article 76, paragraph 8). There are provided
arguments to extend the Norwegian seabed claim beyond the 200 nmi
(370 km; 230 mi) EEZ in three areas of the northeastern
Atlantic and the Arctic: the "Loop Hole" in the
Barents Sea, the Western Nansen Basin in the Arctic Ocean, and the
"Banana Hole" in the
Norwegian Sea. The submission also states that an additional
submission for continental shelf limits in other areas may be posted
later.[19]
The Russian
Federation
Russia ratified the UNCLOS in 1997 and had until 2007 to make its
claim to an extended continental shelf.
The Russian Federation is claiming a large extended continental
shelf as far as the North Pole based on the
Lomonosov Ridge within their Arctic sector.
Moscow
believes the eastern Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of the
Siberian
continental shelf. The Russian claim does not cross the Russia-US
Arctic sector demarcation line, nor does it extend into the Arctic
sector of any other Arctic coastal state.
On December 20, 2001, Russia made an official submission into the
UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance
with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (article 76,
paragraph 8). In the document it is proposed to establish the outer
limits of the
continental shelf of Russia beyond the 200-nautical-mile (370 km)
Exclusive Economic Zone, but within the Russian Arctic sector.[20]
The territory claimed by Russia in the submission is a large portion of
the Arctic within its sector, extending to but not beyond the geographic
North Pole.[21]
One of the arguments was a statement that Lomonosov Ridge, an
underwater mountain ridge passing near the Pole, and
Mendeleev Ridge on the Russian side of the Pole are extensions of
the
Eurasian continent. In 2002 the UN Commission neither rejected nor
accepted the Russian proposal, recommending additional research.[20]
On August 2, 2007, a Russian expedition called
Arktika 2007, composed of six explorers led by
Artur Chilingarov, employing
MIR submersibles, for the first time in history descended to the
seabed
at the North Pole. There they planted the
Russian flag and took water and
soil
samples for analysis, continuing a mission to provide additional
evidence related to the Russian claim to the mineral riches of the
Arctic.[22]
This was part of the ongoing 2007 Russian North Pole expedition within
the program of the 2007–2008
International Polar Year.
The expedition aimed to establish that the eastern section of seabed
passing close to the Pole, known as the Lomonosov Ridge, is in fact an
extension of Russia's landmass. The expedition came as several countries
are trying to extend their rights over sections of the Arctic Ocean
floor. Both Norway and Denmark are carrying out surveys to this end.
Vladimir Putin made a speech on a nuclear icebreaker on 3 May 2007,
urging greater efforts to secure Russia's "strategic, economic,
scientific and defense interests" in the Arctic.[23]
In mid-September 2007, Russia's Natural Resources Ministry issued a
statement:
|
“ |
Preliminary results of an analysis of the earth crust model
examined by the Arktika 2007 expedition, obtained on September
20, have confirmed that the crust structure of the Lomonosov
Ridge corresponds to the world analogues of the continental
crust, and it is therefore part of the Russian Federation's
adjacent continental shelf.[24] |
” |
Viktor Posyolov, an official with Russia's Agency for Management of
Mineral Resources:
|
“ |
With a
high degree of likelihood, Russia will be able to increase its
continental shelf by 1.2 million square kilometers [460,000
square miles] with potential hydrocarbon reserves of not less
than 9,000 to 10,000 billion tonnes of conventional fuel beyond
the 200-mile (320 km) [322 kilometer] economic zone in the
Arctic Ocean[25] |
” |
United
States of America
In August 2007, an American
Coast Guard icebreaker, the
USCGC Healy, headed to the Arctic Ocean to map the sea floor
off Alaska. Larry Mayer, director of the Center for Coastal and Ocean
Mapping at the
University of New Hampshire, stated the trip had been planned for
months, having nothing to do with the Russians planting their flag. The
purpose of the mapping work aboard the Healy is to determine the
extent of the continental shelf north of Alaska.
As of February 2013, the
United States had not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea and, therefore, has not been eligible to file an official claim to
an extended continental shelf with the UN Commission on the Limits of
the Continental Shelf.
Future
It was stated by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on March 25, 2007, that
riches are awaiting the shipping industry due to Arctic
climate change. This economic sector could be transformed similar to
the way the
Middle East was by the
Suez Canal in the 19th century. There will be a race among nations
for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes, accelerated by the impact
of global warming.[26]
The potential value of the North Pole and the surrounding area
resides not so much in shipping itself but in the possibility that
lucrative
petroleum and
natural gas reserves exist below the sea floor. Such reserves are
known to exist under the Beaufort Sea. However, the vast majority of the
Arctic known to contain gas and oil resources is already within
uncontested EEZs. When these current uncontested Exclusive Economic
Zones (EEZ) of the Arctic littoral states are taken into account there
is only a small unclaimed area at the very top potentially available for
open gas/oil exploration.[27]
On September 14, 2007 the
European Space Agency reported ice loss had opened up the Northwest
Passage "for the first time since records began in 1978", and the
extreme loss in 2007 rendered the passage "fully navigable".[28][29]
Further exploration for petroleum reserves elsewhere in the Arctic may
now become more feasible, and the passage may become a regular channel
of international shipping and commerce if Canada is not able to enforce
its claim to it.[30]
Foreign Ministers and other officials representing Canada, Denmark,
Norway, Russia, and the United States met in
Ilulissat, Greenland in May 2008, at the
Arctic Ocean Conference and announced the
Ilulissat Declaration. Among other things the declaration stated
that any demarcation issues in the Arctic should be resolved on a
bilateral basis between contesting parties.[31][32]
Hans Island
Main article:
Hans IslandHans Island is situated in the
Nares Strait, a
waterway that runs between
Ellesmere Island (the northernmost part of
Nunavut,
Canada) and Greenland. The uninhabited island was named for Greenlandic
Arctic traveller
Hans Hendrik.
In 1973, Canada and Denmark negotiated the geographic coordinates of
the continental shelf, and settled on a
delimitation treaty that was ratified by the
United Nations on December 17, 1973, and has been in force since
March 13, 1974. The treaty lists 127 points (by
latitude and
longitude) from
Davis Strait to the end of
Robeson Channel, where Nares Strait runs into
Lincoln Sea; the border is defined by
geodesic lines between these points. The treaty does not, however,
draw a line from point 122 (80°49′2″N
66°29′0″W)
to point 123 (80°49′8″N
66°26′3″W)—a
distance of 875 m (0.54 mi). Hans Island is situated in the centre of
this area.
Danish flags were planted on Hans Island in 1984, 1988, 1995 and
2003. The Canadian government formally protested these actions. In July
2005, former
Canadian defence minister
Bill Graham made an unannounced stop on Hans Island during a trip to
the Arctic; this launched yet another diplomatic quarrel between the
governments, and a truce was called that September.
Canada had claimed Hans Island was clearly in their territory, as
topographic maps originally used in 1967 to determine the island's
coordinates clearly showed the entire island on Canada's side of the
delimitation line. However, federal officials reviewed the latest
satellite imagery in July 2007, and conceded that the line went roughly
through the middle of the island. This presently leaves ownership of the
island disputed, with claims over fishing grounds and future access to
the Northwest Passage possibly at stake as well.[33]
As of April 2012, the governments of both countries are in
negotiations which may ultimately result in the island being split
almost precisely in half.[34]
Beaufort Sea
The cross-hatched wedge-shaped region in the east is claimed
by both Canada and the United States.
There is an ongoing dispute involving a wedge-shaped slice on the
International Boundary in the
Beaufort Sea, between the Canadian
territory of
Yukon and
the American
state of Alaska.[35]
The Canadian position is that the maritime boundary should follow the
land boundary. The American position is that the maritime boundary
should extend along a path equidistant from the coasts of the two
nations. The disputed area may hold significant
hydrocarbon reserves. The US has already leased eight
plots of terrain below the water to search for and possibly bring to
market
oil reserves that may exist there. Canada has protested
diplomatically in response.[36]
No settlement has been reached to date, because the US has signed but
has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. If
the treaty is ratified, the issue would likely be settled at a tribunal.[35]
On August 20, 2009
United States Secretary of Commerce
Gary Locke announced a
moratorium on fishing the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, including
the disputed waters.[37][38]
Randy Boswell, of
Canada.com wrote that the disputed area covered a 21,436 square
kilometres (8,276 sq mi) section of the Beaufort Sea (smaller than
Israel,
larger than
El Salvador). He wrote that Canada had filed a "diplomatic
note" with the United States in April when the US first announced
plans for the moratorium.
Northwest Passage
Northwest Passage routes.
The legal status of the Northwest Passage is disputed: Canada
considers it to be part of its internal waters according to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[39]
The United States and most maritime nations,[40]
consider them to be an international strait,[41]
which means that foreign vessels have right of "transit passage".[42]
In such a regime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and
environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws
intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the
passage.[43]
In addition, the environmental regulations allowed under the UNCLOS are
not as robust as those allowed if the Northwest Passage is part of
Canada's internal waters.[44]
Arctic territories
See also