Category: Arctic

The Problems of Overlapping Governance on the Arctic Continental Shelves Pending Delineation and Delimitation

Post author By sso170
Post date 04/10/2022
2 Comments on The Problems of Overlapping Governance on the Arctic Continental Shelves Pending Delineation and Delimitation

By: Dr. Ekaterina Antsygina (Postdoctoral Researcher, The University of Hamburg) & Cornell Overfield (Research Analyst, Center for Naval Analyses)

Corresponding author: Dr. Ekaterina Antsygina, ekaterina.antsygina@gmail.com

Pdf: Ekaterina Antsygina and Cornell Overfield_04102022_ the NCLOS blog_ final.pdf

Matter commented on: Problems of overlapping governance on Arctic continental shelves

1. Introduction

The continental shelf has been the dispute par excellence in the narrative that the Arctic is an ungoverned region. The seabed of the Central Arctic Ocean is subject to overlapping “claims” by Canada, Russia, and Denmark (via Greenland), and alarming reports have suggested that competing rights over the resources might culminate in conflict between Russia and the West. This myth has been widely challenged, but another myth lives on: that the seabed beyond 200 nautical miles (M) remains ungoverned until the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) issues recommendations on the outer limits of continental shelves and the asserting states divvy up the pie. In fact, these states already can and do exercise control over the seabed areas they assert by virtue of the doctrine of inherent rights.

This coastal state prerogative creates problems at all stages before a final delineation of the shelf’s outer limits and a final delimitation of overlapping entitlements. Most importantly, where entitlements overlap and have not yet been delimited, potential users might proceed with some activities without approval from all states asserting entitlements to the relevant shelf area. Action based on unilateral decision could sharpen tensions and undercut trust among Arctic states. To minimize the risk of this pending the final delimitation of the Arctic continental shelves, Arctic states should establish a mechanism to authorize activities on overlapping entitlements beyond 200 M. This mechanism should be created as soon as possible among the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Russia (subject to changes in the geopolitical situation). On this backdrop, this blog post explores legal issues connected with activities on overlapping continental shelf entitlements in the Arctic Ocean and pre-delineation and pre-delimitation problems that the Arctic coastal States are facing.

Tags arctic governance, Arctic ocean, Continental shelf, delineation, Law of the Sea

Arctic Ecosystem approach

Launch of a New Research Project at NCLOS: Developing Good Ocean Governance of the Arctic in Times of Unpredictable and Rapid Changes (DOGA)

By: Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen, Hilde Woker, Iva Parlov

PDF version: Launch of a New Research Project at NCLOS_010721_NCLOS_Blog

Matter commented on: developing good ocean governance of the Arctic

The Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS) is excited to announce the launch of a new research project: Developing Good Ocean Governance of the Arctic in Times of Unpredictable and Rapid Changes (DOGA), funded by the Norwegian Research Council. The DOGA project is led by Professor Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen and assembles a group of researchers from NCLOS, the Norwegian College of Fishery Science, the Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in Russia, and Dalhousie University in Halifax in Canada. The aim of the project is to contribute to good ocean governance of the marine Arctic by critically investigating the implementation of the ecosystem approach in Norway, within a regional context.

Arctic

A book review of Emerging Legal Orders in the Arctic: The Role of Non-Arctic Actors

Post author By map000
Post date 12/02/2020
1 Comment on A book review of Emerging Legal Orders in the Arctic: The Role of Non-Arctic Actors

By: Jan Jakub Solski*

PDF version: NCLOS Blog Jan Solski Blog book review

Matter commented on: Emerging Legal Orders in the Arctic: The Role of Non-Arctic Actors

Akiho Shibata, Leilei Zou, Nikolas Sellheim and Marzia Scopelliti (eds)

(2019) Informa Law from Routledge, h/b,

ISBN: 978-1-138-61851, pp 286, £115.

*The review will be published in the forthcoming issue of Journal of International Maritime Law vol 25 (2019) Issue 5, published by Lawtext Publishing Ltd www.lawtext.com

This most interesting book is a collection of contributions by a geographically diverse group of legal and political science experts, reflecting on the recent developments in the legal regime of the Arctic and taking a specific interest in non-Arctic actors. It responds to an observation that there is a remarkable change all over the world, particularly felt and visible in the Arctic (p 1). Climate change, globalisation and shifts in power, such as the shift in relative political and economic power from the West to the East, as well as the recognition for the increasing role of non-state actors in international law, all provide the rationale for the book and its focus.

Arctic

The way towards strengthened marine cooperation in the Arctic

Post author By csk000
Post date 03/11/2017
No Comments on The way towards strengthened marine cooperation in the Arctic

By: Christian Prip

PDF version: The way towards strengthened marine cooperation in the Arctic

Document commented on: Report to Ministers of the Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation.

The Arctic Council Ministers established a Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation (TFAMC) in 2015 “to assess future needs for a regional seas program or other mechanism, as appropriate, for increased cooperation in Arctic marine areas” and “to make recommendations on the nature and scope of any such mechanisms.” (Iqaluit Declaration, paragraph 43) The Task Force was requested to deliver a report to Ministers in 2017 identifying future needs for strengthened cooperation for Arctic marine areas, as well as whether the Council should begin negotiations on a cooperation mechanism for Arctic marine areas.

Co-chaired by the U.S., Norway, and Iceland, the Task Force met five times, with participation from all Arctic States, three Arctic Council Permanent Representatives, four Arctic Council working groups as well as invited experts and observer States and organizations. In its 2017 report, the Task Force requested to continue its work. Ministers at the Arctic Council Ministerial in Fairbanks, Alaska, 10 – 11 May 2017 met the request and established a new mandate for the Task Force to present “…terms of reference for a possible new subsidiary Body, and recommendations for complementary enhancements to existing Arctic Council mechanisms, for consideration by Ministers in 2019.” (Fairbanks Declaration, paragraph 12).

A first meeting of the extended TFAMC was held 14 – 15 September 2017. Reports from TFAMC meetings are not made public.

Arctic European Union

Remarks on the European Parliament’s proposal to ban Heavy Fuel Oils in the Arctic

Post author By gje011
Post date 28/04/2017
No Comments on Remarks on the European Parliament’s proposal to ban Heavy Fuel Oils in the Arctic

By: Nelson F. Coelho

PDF Version: Remarks on the European Parliament’s proposal to ban Heavy Fuel Oils in the Arctic

Decision commented on: European Parliament resolution of 16 March 2017 on an integrated European Union policy for the Arctic (2016/2228(INI)).

The carriage in bulk as cargo or carriage and use as fuel of heavy grade oils by ships in the Antarctic area (sea area south of latitude 60ºS) has been prohibited since 2011 under Regulation 43 of MARPOL Annex I, later amended to include use as ballast. Partly inspired by this measure, the European Parliament (EP) adopted, on March 16th 2017, a resolution on an integrated European Union (EU) policy for the Arctic. This resolution looks at many issues related to that region, one of them being the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in maritime transport.

Tags Customary international law, European Union

Arctic

Sea-change in polar shipping: from Arctic to Antarctic Polar Code initiatives

Post author By gje011
Post date 01/02/2017
1 Comment on Sea-change in polar shipping: from Arctic to Antarctic Polar Code initiatives

By: Dorottya Bognar

PDF Version: Sea-change in polar shipping: from Arctic to Antarctic Polar Code initiatives

Meetings commented on: International Maritime Organisation, Maritime Safety Committee, 95^th session, 3-12 June 2015; Maritime Safety Committee, 96^th session, 11-20 May 2016; Maritime Safety Committee, 97^th session, 21-25 November 2016; Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Construction, upcoming 4^th session (submissions discussed here are filed under agenda item 13 “Biennial status report and provisional agenda for SDC 5”), 13-17 February 2017.

The International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) mandatory Polar Code – or to use its official title: International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (see Resolution MEPC.264(68), 15 May 2015) – has just entered into force with the turn of the New Year. However, this is not the end of the developments with regard to the regulation of shipping in Arctic and Antarctic waters. With experience gained from the operation of the Polar Code, it is expected that work will start to extend the coverage of the Code to additional vessel types and new issues. But who is going to take the leadership role in pushing this agenda? Is it going to be the Arctic states, who have been instrumental in the development and content of the Code? Or are we going to witness the emergence of new leaders? In this post, I argue that we should be looking to the Antarctic states for leadership in this new phase of the Polar Code.

Arctic Fisheries

The December 2015 Washington Meeting on High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

Post author By csk000
Post date 05/02/2016
No Comments on The December 2015 Washington Meeting on High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

By: Erik J. Molenaar

PDF Version: The December 2015 Washington Meeting on High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

Matter commented on: The first meeting of the so-called ‘Broader Process’ on international regulation of high seas fishing in the central Arctic Ocean, held in Washington, D.C. between 1-3 December 2015.

Between 1-3 December 2015, delegations from the five Arctic Ocean coastal States – namely Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States (the so-called ‘Arctic Five’) – as well as delegations from five other States and entities – namely China, the European Union (EU), Iceland, Japan and South Korea – met in Washington, D.C. for a meeting on high seas fishing in the central Arctic Ocean. The meeting was initiated, hosted and chaired by the United States. A Chairman’s Statement on the meeting (2015 Washington Chairman’s Statement) was released on 3 December.

Arctic Fisheries

The Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

Post author By csk000
Post date 11/08/2015
No Comments on The Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

By: Seamus Ryder

PDF Version: The Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

Matter Commented On: The Declaration concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

On 16 July, 2015, Ambassadorial-level representatives from all five Arctic Ocean coastal states – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States (the Arctic Five) – met in Oslo to sign the Declaration concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (the Declaration). The Declaration follows up on the substantive outcome of the February 2014 Nuuk Meeting on Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries and builds upon discussions toward the development and implementation of interim measures to prevent unregulated fishing in the high seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean and related scientific matters. In this sense, the Declaration can be seen as the latest development in a so-called “Arctic Ocean coastal state process” on the regulation and management of Arctic Ocean fisheries. This blog post looks at the substantive output of this latest development and makes some initial observations regarding the contribution of the Declaration to the legal and policy framework for Arctic fisheries (background information and discussions on both the Nuuk meeting and the Arctic Ocean coastal state process on Arctic Ocean fisheries can be found in an earlier blog post). If nothing else, this post aims to clarify a number of apparent misconceptions and inaccuracies in media reports on the Declaration.

Arctic Fisheries

The Nuuk Meeting on Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries

Post author By csk000
Post date 15/10/2014
No Comments on The Nuuk Meeting on Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries

By: Seamus Ryder

PDF Version: The Nuuk Meeting on Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries

Matter commented on: Meeting on Arctic Fisheries, Nuuk, Greenland, 24-26 February 2014

As reported in the New York Times the potential development of unregulated fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean has secured the attention of all five Arctic Ocean coastal states – Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia and the United States (the Arctic Five). Government officials from these states met most recently in Nuuk, Greenland from 24-26 February 2014 to discuss the development of interim measures to prevent unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean and related scientific matters. However, despite a mutual understanding among the Arctic Five on the substance of interim measures as well as on the need to adopt an agreement on central Arctic Ocean fisheries, no such interim measures or agreements have been formalized. Relations among the Arctic Five have recently become strained because of recent events in Ukraine. As a result, at least for the time being, the outcome of the Nuuk meeting might be the closest we will get to a regional agreement on central Arctic Ocean fisheries management. As such, it warrants closer investigation.