RSS

The future of the Arctic region is built upon competing interests from the need for a deeper climate of cooperation between Arctic states to the fight over Arctic resources by any means, including military ones. Comparing the strategy papers published by the Arctic littoral states (Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway,etc.) and the European Union proves that the legal basis for the resolution of disputes does exist. Moreover, concrete spheres for cooperation have been pointed out by their respective foreign ministers in the Ilulissat Declaration of 2008.

Cooperating with Russia on Arctic Issues is Feasible and Desirable

A cooperative future in the Arctic region can be illustrated by clear examples of cooperation with the US, Canada, Russia and Nordic countries within the Arctic Council. Extensive programs of cooperation are being realized by the Council of Euro-Arctic Region. Norway for instance considers developing its relationship with Russia to be the necessary precondition for successful implementation of its national strategy in the High North. The Norwegian government proposed to establish a Russian-Norwegian economic "Pomor Zone," which was supported by the Russian government.

The Arctic littoral states are responsible for governance of Arctic areas under their jurisdiction. Any legal basis for making other states or organizations responsible for this governance instead of them does not exist. Naturally, they have to follow international treaties, regulating regimes of these maritime territories.

Overcoming Territorial Disputes with the Help of UN Agencies

Disputes in the Arctic region can be resolved on the basis of international law in general, and of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in particular. Joining the UNCLOS convention is currently on the US political agenda. The UNCLOS legally entitles Russia and other Arctic littoral states to continental shelf of 200 miles in the Arctic. These states and Russia have also the legal right to pretend under certain conditions to additional continental shelf up to 350 miles. Decisions on this matter are to be taken by the UN Commission on limits of continental shelf. Russia and some other Arctic states have already addressed their claims to this Commission. Polar areas beyond this limit may constitute an "open sea" Arctic space. This option should be considered as feasible only after final decisions of the above mentioned UN Commission are taken.

Russia as the Leader the Development of the Arctic Region

Russia strives to transform its Arctic maritime and land possessions into an asset to further develop the Russian national economy. This does not exclude, but rather presupposes, involvement of other states by their financial resources and technologies in fully exploiting these resources, a process which is already underway.

It is evident that further economic exploitation of the Russian Arctic zone will be followed by increasing intensity of maritime and coastal shipping in the Arctic seas adjoining the Russian territory. According to the Russian Arctic strategy, the utilisation of the North East Passage (NEP) as a national unified transport route, connecting Russian Northern provinces corresponds to the Russian national interests.

The geographical position of Russia makes it particularly relevant to use its territory and airspace as well as the NEP for transit transportation of commodities from the Asian-Pacific region and China to Europe. Utilisation of the NEP for international shipping within the Russian jurisdictional framework and in accordance to international treaties is among Russia's strategic priorities.

Russia Gets Permanent Access to the Arctic Sea

The possible melt-down of the ice cap may promote this development. Inclusion of the NEP and the North West Passage in permanently operating lanes of transportation may result in the emergence of new global maritime routes in the Arctic. This could create profitable large industrial clusters, centers of logistics and port hubs first and foremost in Russian and Norwegian zones.

Russia's non-frozen Northern ports in the Arctic, as large industrial centers with significant resources of skilled labour workforce, high scientific potential and high-grade power supply systems, are the main candidates to become the largest centres of transportation, logistics and industry in the Arctic zone. An active utilisation of their capacities will enable Russia to have year-round direct access to European and global markets and to provide Russian international partners with important transport and logistical services in the Arctic.

Lev Voronkov is a Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations' Department of European Integration. He is currently researching on the actors and interests and Russia's and Norway's role in the High North.

Related Material from the Atlantic Community:

• Klaus Dodds: Sea and State Change
• K. S. Yalowitz & R. A. Virginia: The Arctic Region: Great Game or International Cooperation?
• Paal Sigurd Hilde: Norway and the Arctic: The End of Dreams?

March 17, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

There is no reason there has to be overt conflict with Russia on this issue, nor should there be.

I commented before that it is likely that there will be a militarization during the scramble for Arctic resources. I think this will be highly likely as no one wants to allow their claims to be made irrelevant by another nation that seeks aggrandizement before negotiation (or even during negotiation).

This does not necessarily mean actual, physical conflict though. Militarization should be viewed within the constext of preparing for a possibility, not necessarily a likelihood. Consequently, while there may be discussion of "Great Games", this is not a foregone conclusion even within a framework where military engagement remains firmly within the realm of theoretical possibilities.

With that in mind, the five littoral states should seek a general agreement amongst themselves recognizing that others will lay claims not based on geography, but abstract principles that are difficult, if not impossible to enforce. While there will be some inherent uneasiness to such a situation, it can be managed with an eye to the larger geopolitical implications of global resource demand.

Tags: | Arctic governance |

March 17, 2010

Caitlyn Antrim

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

All of the Arctic coastal states have agreed that the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea are the appropriate mechanism by which to determine the limits of coastal state control and the rights of other states within the territorial sea, the EEZ, the continental shelf and the high seas. This applies even to the United States, which signed the 1994 Agreement on the Implementation of Part XI and which is still in the process of seeking senate approval to join the Convention. Furthermore, any nation that attempts to impose principles counter the LOS Convention would have to be willing to weaken the Convention in other parts of the world, a burden I don't believe any nation wants to assume. If the EU, for example, tries to change the rights of Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway to manage their arctic areas, then they would open the door to intrusion of non-european countries into management of the Mediterranean and the English Channel. I expect that the US having a decision role in the utilization of the Mediterranean Sea would be as unwelcome by Spain, France and other southern european states as the Arctic states would fine intrusion of the EU into the management of their EEZs and shelves.

I think that rather than militarization of the arctic we will see an increase in law enforcement capability. In the United States that would be the difference between utilizing the Coast Guard, which has law enforcement capability, or the navy, which doesn't. With all the Arctic states committed to the principles of the LOS Convention, there is little reason to utilize navies' offensive capability when defense and enforcement capability within EEZs and continental shelves is what is needed.

Also, I want to point out that the convention and its institutions are not part of the United Nations, even though the convention was negotiated at the UN. There is no "UN Conference on the Law of the Sea" - the conference ended in 1982. There are states party to the convention that gather every year at the UN and the Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea provides support for the parties and for the CLCS, but the UN itself has no decision or enforcement role. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea are all autonomous organizations that operate under the authority of the parties to the Convention and not under the authority of the United Nations Organization. The independence of the Convention and the bodies it created was an intentional decision by the negotiating parties and should not forgotten.

March 19, 2010

Juliette Dixon, Science Po Lille, Gold Contributor (118)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Ms. Antrim, we would love to quote you in the final memo on Arctic governance to be written next week. In order to do so, please become a member, it takes only a couple of seconds.

March 21, 2010

Levoyer Estelle, University College London, (5)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The shift from the Bush administration to Obama's one is giving hope for the future.
From a sheer lack of interest in the region, G. W. Bush administration produced that Directive putting an emphasis on the American interests in the Arctic region resources. Obama confirmed the interest in the region while focusing on the fight against climate change. This sounds all very interesting, but will the latter be able to live up to this priority?
The US has not ratified the UNCLOS convention yet. This is the least the American administration could do to back up these though interesting, but empty declarations.

March 24, 2010

Olga Kolesnichenko, freelance journalist, Gold Contributor (124)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

International community shouldn't consider the issue of Arctic such as a tremendous threat and challenge. It should be a new capability for a new world. I don't support thoughts that somebody has to fight for more and more miles in Arctic. It is the way that leads nowhere. May be it will be very responsible global forum, which will be devoted for real challenge in the close future - very fast growing Asia-Pacific region, poverty and lack of water and food. Consequences are very clear. It concerns global security. And so, may be advanced Euro-Atlantic community create the free economic zone in Arctic, where growing countries could do business and have access to natural resourses.

March 25, 2010

Pavel Groisman, Ph.D., AGU Fellow

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The bilateral collaborations are more flexible and can be organized quicker than a multilateral activity.

Furthermore, there are questions that are important ONLY to two countries (e.g., transborder collaboration in Beringia or in the Chukchi Sea) and to wait until the Arctic Council will step in is not advisable.

However, saying this, I am strongly supporting all modes of international collaboration that might improve our understanding of the Arctic and its changes.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org