A SEETHING ICY WILDERNESS

While the whole world is keeping a close eye on the outcome of the tempestuous events taking shape in the temperate and warm latitudes of our planet, in the northern Arctic wastes a chilling wind of change is raging, in itself no less important and one that has remained on the agenda of the states concerned for several years now.

Because of its unique geopolitical significance, and also its vast layers of natural resources, which are yet to be given an economically feasible assessment in terms of quantity and quality, the Arctic and its development is gradually becoming one of the focal areas of the foreign and domestic policies of many countries. In accordance with the existing norms of international law, only five states lying in the immediate proximity of the Arctic and members of the so-called “Arctic Club” may develop its shelf: Denmark (through Greenland and the Faeroe Islands), Canada, Norway, Russia and the USA. Generally speaking, the main contact points of the sides in contention to develop the Arctic lie in territorial, military, scientific-research and, naturally, economic criteria.

Right up to the beginning of the 1980s the whole mainland territory of the littoral states up to the North Pole was divided on the basis of universally recognized international law. With the Arctic regarded as an icy wilderness, nobody objected to this division. At the same time, the Soviet Union remained the biggest beneficiary with an overall area of the polar sector of up to 44 percent of Arctic territory.

The major reserves of minerals and hydrocarbons which have been discovered in the Arctic relatively recently have forced the leaders of some countries to embark on the serious development of new strategies to protect their own national interests in this region. It has long been established that the Arctic glaciers are melting rapidly and climate change in the Arctic could also affect the legal status of certain sectors of the shelf, which means broader opportunities for unrestricted and shorter year-round navigation between Europe and America. And this holds out the prospects of major economic benefit for the littoral states.

Of course, the question of the Arctic’s legal status remains the stumbling block in the development of the Northern region. The perceptions of a number of states about the borders of the shelf do not coincide, compounding disputes about the demarcation of maritime borders. Occasionally, this is linked with the recent interest in the region and the early stage of development of the Arctic’s international law regime, which leads to various interpretations of the affiliation and status of certain territories and waterways. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was adopted in 1982 and is the basic document regulating the norms of international law in the development of the Arctic, inserted an important amendment regarding the original division of the region. At this moment in time, the territorial jurisdiction of the littoral states applies only to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), situated 370 km from the shore, and the zone of this scale is regarded as international. Interestingly, the convention, which has been ratified by over 150 states, including the four countries of the “Arctic Club”, remains unrecognized by the United States due to territorial claims such as infringing US sovereignty.

Everyone is haggling over the Arctic. Despite the universally recognized international norms, countries which have no border with the Arctic – the United Kingdom, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Japan and even China – are talking about their rights to develop the Arctic zone. Against a general background of earnest disputes about the legal status of the region one can particularly identify claims by Denmark, Canada and Russia to extend the limits of their continental shelves in general, and to the ownership of the recently discovered Lomonosov Ridge, in particular. In this context, one should also mention the differences between Canada and the USA over the status of the North West Passage and a small (on the scale of these countries) portion in the Beaufort Sea.

Russia’s main efforts are being directed towards extending the borders of Russia’s continental shelf beyond the 370-km zone towards the pole. But to achieve this it must prove in the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) that the shelf is a natural continuation of the Lomonosov and Mendeleyev Ridges – submarine ridges crosscutting the Arctic Ocean from Canada to Russia via the North Pole. Such a precedent already exists: Norway was the first state in relation to which the commission adopted positive recommendations on continental shelf borders in 2009. But, naturally, other Arctic countries – Canada and Denmark – are against the expansion of the Russian sector.

Since the US has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, it does not have the right to demand an extension of the continental shelf. But this doesn’t stop them playing an active part in the general process of the development of the Arctic. A vast amount of budget money is being allocated for these purposes and new federal, regional and scientific agencies are being created where necessary. However, there have been disputes here, too.  For example, the Canadian government regards the sea area of the North West Passage, which lies mainly within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, as internal waters, which gives it the right to prohibit the passage of ships where necessary. But because the US and some EU states classify these waters as an “international strait”, they demand that Canada’s jurisdiction extends only to activity linked with fishing, protection of the environment, combating smuggling and navigation security and definitely not the possibility of closing the passage – the exclusive right of a sovereign state. It would appear that, after a lengthy process of mutual reproaches and negotiations, the question had been diplomatically settled by the parties to the conflict when at the end of the 1980s the US pledged to request prior permission to pass through, and Canada to grant the corresponding permission to the Americans. Under the threat of increasing Russian influence, and bearing in mind the rapid thawing of glaciers in the Arctic, the US bases its concern on the fact that recognition of Canada’s sovereign right to close the North West Passage to foreign ships could serve as a precedent for such sea routes as the Strait of Hormuz or Qiongzhou Strait, situated between continental China and Hainan Island.

The build-up of the military presence of the littoral countries in the region is being felt particularly keenly. Following the collapse of the USSR and, accordingly, the end of the Cold War, the Arctic’s strategic importance has been substantially reduced. But the region remains extremely important for both Russia and the US – Russia’s Northern Fleet is based on the Kola Peninsula, and the United States regards Arctic waters as potential sea and air approaches to Russia’s strategic assets and a zone of restraint of Russia’s military-political influence. There is, indeed, much to ponder: modern nuclear submarines deployed in the north-east of the Barents Sea and equipped with ballistic missiles are capable of striking at a vast number of strategic targets throughout the world, using the shortest flight paths.

It should also be borne in mind that the major powers hold specific positions in the deployment of their nuclear submarine fleets in northern latitudes and sea-based ABM systems. Generally speaking, the stand-off between Russia and NATO will continue, albeit in a milder form than during the Cold War. So, one may expect a certain increase in the military presence of the Arctic states in the region and the development of a military infrastructure there.

For the United Kingdom, Germany, China and Japan, as well as some other developed countries that possess technology in the study and use of the sea bed, the need to apply the general principles and norms of the 1982 Convention, including rights to the industrial development of natural resources, to the Arctic is important.  As a result of global warming and the melting of the ice-flows, the hydrocarbon-rich Arctic could easily lay claim to the role of a storehouse of energy and biological resources.  The opportunities for developing new transport routes, including the revival of the Northern Sea Route, which virtually ceased to function after the collapse of the USSR, and also the currently ice-covered passage between Greenland and Canada, which will enable ships to get from the North Atlantic to East Asia much quicker than through the Panama Canal, are gradually being extended.

In short, the Arctic promises more surprises to come. Unquestionably, the formula for success in the development of the Arctic region would be to solve the backlog of questions linked with the legal status of the Arctic. Bearing in mind its unique geographical situation, the readiness of the littoral countries to make mutual concessions will play a significant role in this.