Advertisement

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Arctic Ocean

  • Nigel BankesEmail author
  • Maria Madalena das Neves
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides an analysis of the legal status of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) in the Arctic and a brief review of its content emphasizing the different maritime zones established by the LOSC. It examines the rules established by the LOSC for the delimitation of overlapping maritime claims as well as the rules for extended continental shelf claims by coastal States. The chapter then discusses two more specific issues: first, the LOSC provisions with respect to the protection of the marine environment with more detailed examination of Article 234, the ice-covered area provision, and the related question as to the legal relationship between national measures under Article 234 and the Polar Code recently adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO); and second, the LOSC provisions with respect to high seas fisheries and a more detailed examination of the recently concluded Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean.

References

  1. Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOF Agreement). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0454.
  2. Arctic Sunrise Award. 2015. Award on the Merits. Registry: Permanent Court of Arbitration. https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1438.
  3. AWPPA. 1985. Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, Revised Statues of Canada, chapter A-12.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, J., and M. Byers. 2012. Crossed Lines: The Curious Case of the Beaufort Sea Maritime Boundary Dispute. Ocean Development and International Law 43: 70–95.Google Scholar
  5. Bankes, N. 2016. The Regime for Transboundary Hydrocarbon Deposits in the Maritime Delimitation Treaties and Other Related Agreements of Arctic States. Ocean Development and International Law 47 (2): 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bankes, N., and T. Koivurova. 2015. Legal Systems. In Arctic Human Development Report, 2nd ed., 221–252. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A788965&dswid=-3505.Google Scholar
  7. Bartenstein, K. 2011. The “Arctic Exception” in the Law of the Sea Convention: A Contribution to Safer Navigation in the Northwest Passage? Ocean Development & International Law 42 (1–2): 25–27.Google Scholar
  8. Bognar, D. 2016. Russian Proposals on the Polar Code: Contributing to Common Rules or Furthering State Interests? Arctic Review on Law and Politics 7 (2): 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chagos Arbitration Award. 2015. Merits. Registry: Permanent Court of Arbitration. https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/11/.
  10. Churchill, R. 2015. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, ed. D.R. Rothwell, A.G.O. Elferink, K.N. Scott, and T. Stephens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corell, H. 2007. Reflections on the Possibilities and Limitations of a Binding Legal Regime. Environmental Policy and Law 37: 322.Google Scholar
  12. Elferink, A.G.O. 2001. The Outer Continental Shelf in the Arctic: The Application of Article 76 to the LOS Convention in a Regional Context. In The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction, ed. A.G.O. Elferink and D.R. Rothwell. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, M.D. 2015. Maritime Boundary Delimitation. In The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, ed. D.R. Rothwell, A.G.O. Elferink, K.N. Scott, and T.Stephens. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Executive Order. 2017. Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, Executive Order 13795, April 28, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/03/2017-09087/implementing-an-america-first-offshore-energy-strategy.
  15. Fauchald, O.K. 2011. Regulatory Frameworks for Maritime Transport in the Arctic: Will a Polar Code Contribute to Resolve Conflicting Interests? In Maritime Transport in the High North, ed. J. Grue and R. Gabrielsen. Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters and Norwegian Academy of Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Gavouneli, M. 2007. Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henriksen, T., and G. Ulfstein. 2011. Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty. Ocean Development and International Law 42: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ICJ. 1993. Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway). ICJ Reports, 38.Google Scholar
  19. Ilullisat Declaration. 2008. The Ilullisat Declaration. Arctic Ocean Conference, Ilullisat Greenland, 27–29 May 2008. http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf.
  20. Jensen, Ø. 2016. The International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters: Finalization, Adoption and Law of the Sea Implications. Arctic Review on Law and Politics 7 (1): 75–77.Google Scholar
  21. Lamson, C. 1987. Arctic Shipping, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection. Marine Policy 11: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. LOSC. 1982. United Nations Convention in the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.Google Scholar
  23. Luttmann, P. 2015. Ice-Covered Areas under the Law of the Sea Convention: How Extensive are Canada’s Coastal State Powers in the Arctic? Ocean Yearbook Online 29 (1): 85–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macnab, R. 2004. The Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean. In Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits, ed. M.H. Nordquist, J.N. Moore, and T.H. Heidar, 304–305. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  25. MARPOL. 1972. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1859 U.N.T.S. 2.Google Scholar
  26. McDorman, T.L. 2013. The International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf with Special Reference to the Polar Regions. In Polar Law Textbook II, ed. N. Loukacheva, 77–93. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2015. A Note on the Potential Conflicting Treaty Rights and Obligations between the IMO’s Polar Code and Article 234 of the Law of the Sea Convention. In International Law and Politics of the Arctic Ocean: Essays in Honor of Donat Pharand, ed. Suzanne Lalonde and Ted L. McDorman, 141–159. Brill Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  28. McRae, D.M. 1987. The Negotiation of Article 234. In Politics of the Northwest Passage, ed. F. Griffiths, 98–114. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mestral, A. 2015. Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Its Origins and Its Future. In International Law and Politics of the Arctic Ocean: Essays in Honor of Donat Pharand, ed. Suzanne Lalonde and Ted L. McDorman, 111–112. Brill.Google Scholar
  30. Moe, A., D. Fjaertoft, and I. Øverland. 2011. Space and Timing: Why was the Barents Sea Delimitation Dispute Resolved in 2010? Polar Geography 43 (3): 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Molenaar, E.J. 2016. International Regulation of Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries. In Challenges of the Changing Arctic: Continental Shelf, Navigation, and Fisheries, Centre for Oceans Law and Policy Series, vol. 19, ed. Myron H. Nordquist, John Norton Moore, and Ronán Long, 429–463. Brill Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  32. Pharand, D. 1992. The Case for an Arctic Region Council and a Treaty Proposal. Revue générale de droit 23: 163–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polar Code and SOLAS amendments adopted at the 94th session of IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), in November 2014; Environmental Provisions and MARPOL amendments adopted at the 68th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in May 2015. Polar Code entered into force on 1 January 2017.Google Scholar
  34. Richardson, E.L. 1988. Jan Mayen in Perspective. American Journal of International Law 82: 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roach, A.J., and R.W. Smith. 2012. United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims. Brill Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  36. Rothwell, D.R. 2015. International Straits. In The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, ed. D.R. Rothwell, A.G.O. Elferink, K.N. Scott, and T. Stephens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schönfeldt, K., ed. 2017. The Arctic in International Law and Policy, Series on Documents in International Law. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. SOLAS. 1974. International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 1184 U.N.T.S. 277.Google Scholar
  39. Tanaka, Y. 2015. The International Law of the Sea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor, T. 2017. As Quoted in Levon Sevunts, Arctic Nations and Fishing Powers Sign ‘Historic’ Agreement on Fishery. The Barents Observer, December 1. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2017/12/arctic-nations-and-fishing-powers-sign-historic-agreement-fishery.
  41. UNFSA. 1995. United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, December 4, 1995, 2167 U.N.T.S. 88.Google Scholar
  42. US\Canada. 2016. United States-Canada Joint Arctic Leaders’ Statement, December 20. https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/12/20/united-states-canada-joint-arctic-leaders-statement.
  43. VCLT. 1969. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 397.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.University of Tromsi - Norway’s Arctic UniversityTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations