Boundary extension in the Arctic continental shelf: the positions of the claimant states

Valeriya Ruzakova, 3rd term student of the International Institute of Energy Policy and Diplomacy (MIEP), Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Russia (SPIN-code: 4074-1760)
Research supervisor: L. Voronkov, Ph. D., Professor, Moscow State Institute of International Relations  

In December 2014 Denmark filed a claim with the United Nations to expand the boundaries of its continental shelf in the Arctic, and Russia is going to present its new claim in 2015. It seems impossible to elicit the meaning of the ongoing process of the Arctic continental shelf delimitation without specifying its legal and geopolitical aspects. This article is intended to systematize the international legal mechanism of the continental shelf delimitation and to highlight the actual positions of the claimant states as well as the prospects of the boundary delimitation in the Arctic continental shelf.

In December 2014 Denmark filed an application to the United Nations for extension of its continental shelf in the Arctic to 350 nautical miles, which caused numerous comments in official circles of various countries, politicians, experts and observers. Some of them saw in this step the desire of Denmark to implement its geopolitical ambitions, achieve some political goals, join the battle for resources in the Arctic, or provoke military confrontation in the region and a new “cold war”[1].

Some experts, on the basis of the thesis of economic hopelessness of central areas of the continental shelf in the Arctic (according to the US Geological Survey (USGS) «Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle», about 84% of the hydrocarbon resources of the continental shelf is already within the areas of national jurisdiction of the Arctic coastal states), tend to see in the actions of Denmark the logic of the “big geopolitical game”. How justified are these estimates and what actually is it all about?

The international legal regime of the Arctic shelf is governed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. According to Article 76, the continental shelf of a coastal state “includes the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines… where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance”. It is important to note that the baselines – borders of inland seas – are often a subject of controversy. Due to the fact that the United States are not currently a member of the Convention, they are guided by the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, according to which the continental shelf is defined as “the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas”[2].

Figure 1. Scheme of the international legal status of the continental margin and its superjacent waters in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

 

 

The illustration is made based on the US Navy materials: The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations. Digital resource. URL: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9b8e92d-2c8d-4779-9925-0defea93325c/.

Five countries have a continental shelf in the Arctic: Russia, Canada, USA, Denmark (Greenland) and Norway. Activity on the Arctic shelf, over which sovereignty has not been recognized by any of the states, is regulated by the International Seabed Authority located in Kingston, Jamaica[3].

In accordance with Article 4 of Annex II of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal State intending to establish the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles must submit an application (presentation) to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) within 10 years after the ratification of the Convention. Therefore, the application made by Denmark for extension of its Arctic shelf is in full compliance with the provisions of the Convention. This application was expected, and it is not dramatic and cannot give evidence about any “secret geopolitical intentions” of the Kingdom of Denmark. Russia, claiming expansion of its Arctic shelf up to 350 nautical miles, also exercises its rights granted by the 1982 Convention.

When applying for extension of a continental shelf applicant countries have the right to go by various reasons, including political arguments, but their consideration by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf must completely rule out political motives. The Commission’s decisions must be based on objective and independent scientific assessment of the structure of the seabed.

The United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is a purely technical body composed of 21 experts in the field of marine geology, geophysics and hydrography who serve in their personal capacities (Article 2.1 of Annex II of the Convention). Members of the Commission shall be elected for a term of 5 years, and can be re-elected at the meetings of States Parties of the 1982 Convention, which shall be convened by the United Nations Secretary General, as necessary, in accordance with Paragraph 2 (e) of Article 319 of the 1982 Convention.

The main requirement for the composition of the Commission is to ensure equitable geographical representation: at least three members shall be elected from each geographical region. Quorum for a meeting is 2/3 of the total number of participants in the 1982 Convention. 2/3 votes of the states that are present and participate in the voting process is needed for the election of members of the Commission. It is important to note that, as the first Chairman Yu. B. Kazmin pointed out, the Commission remains an independent body, officially non-accountable to the Meeting[4]. The fourth and the latest Commission waselectedatthe 22nd Meetingin 2012. ThisCommission hastheauthorityuntilJune 15, 2017.

Inaccordance with Article 76of the 1982 ConventionandArticles3and 6of Annex IIthereto, the Commission shall perform the followingfunctions:

1) to consider the data and other material submitted by coastal States concerning the outer limits of the continental shelf in areas where those limits extend beyond 200 nautical miles;

2) to provide scientific and technical advice, if requested by the coastal State concerned during the preparation of the data referred to in subparagraph (1);

3) to provide recommendations to the coastal States on the demarcation of the outer limits of their continental shelf.

At the same time, we should note that the Commission’s recommendations are not a final and binding decision. First, according to Article 8 of Annex II of the 1982 Convention, “in the case of disagreement by the coastal State with the recommendations of the Commission, the coastal State shall, within a reasonable time, make a revised or new submission to the Commission”[5]. Second, already here we shall draw attention to the fact that international negotiations obligatorily have the decision function in the process of delimitation of the shelf.

The key criterion in determining the outer limit of the continental margin of the coastal state beyond the 200-mile zone is natural prolongation of the continental shelf. The application submitted to the Commission should contain relevant scientific evidence. Bathymetry (i.e. maps of the seabed with depth marks) and geological criteria are used to determine whether the underwater structures comply with the specified criterion.

The bathymetric criterion (i.e. associated with the assessment of the depth of the sea) involves determining the position of the foot of the continental slope (see Fig. 1) by the maximum change in the gradient, taking into account the 2,500 meter isobath (i.e. an imaginary line connecting all points along the coast where the depth is equal to 2500 meters). The assessment process for the compliance with the geological criteria is even more complex. These criteria include information on the structure and thickness of the sedimentary cover (deposits covering the shelf), the nature of the crust on the continental shelf and geological and geophysical evidence of the location of the continental foot. Sedimentary layers within the outer edge of the continental margin should be 1% (or more) of the shortest distance from the foot of the continental slope. If the data is not available on the sedimentary cover, the limit of the shelf can be marked along a line separated from the foot of the slope by no more than 60 miles.

The restrictive edge of the outer limit of the shelf is a line of 350 miles from the coast of the mainland or islands, and 100 miles from the isobath of 2500 m. However, these restrictions do not apply to submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin. These crustal blocks in the Arctic, with the nature of a mainland and almost inseparable from the continents, go deep into the ocean (i.e. the Mendeleev Elevation) or cross it from Eurasia to the Greenland-Ellesmerian Depression (the Lomonosov Ridge), separating the Arctic Ocean into two different structures – Eurasian (in which, for example, Svalbard and Franz Josef Land are located) and Amerasian (the Canadian Arctic Archipelagoes and Wrangel Island are located here). It is these circumstances that cause the mutual territorial “overlapping” of a number of applications.

Some experts – especially non-Arctic states – see some provocations in the applications for extension of the Arctic continental shelf by Arctic coastal states. For example, the analysts of the British newspaper “Financial Times” explain the desire of the Arctic coastal countries to justify their right to expand the boundaries of the continental shelf in the Arctic by the logic of the “geopolitical game”. The main prize of this game would be the North Pole, the control of which, supposedly, is a symbol of the “geopolitical victory” and leadership in the Arctic region and control over it[6]. A number of researchers even argue that the areas claimed by Denmark, Canada and Russia, are economically future-less, as well pointing at the thickness and consistency of the ice cover over the central part of the shelf, the “minor” share of hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic, concentrated in this part of the shelf .

Meanwhile, according to the research by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) «Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle», the Arctic contains about 22% of the world’s conventional oil and gas reserves (or about 29.9 billion tons of oil equivalent), with about 84% of the hydrocarbon resources of the continental shelf located at depths up to 500 m[7]. According to some representatives of the Arctic coastal states, from 94 to 97% of offshore hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic is already within the exclusive economic zones of the coastal states. These data were presented, for example, by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. These figures are also indicated in the Arctic strategy of Denmark for the period of 2011 – 2020[8]. The same estimates have been given by the experts of the University of the Arctic in Rovaniemi (Finland)[9].

However, we should bear in mind the very low level of exploration of the Arctic shelf, especially in high latitudes, and current prediction-like estimates of oil and gas. There is a good chance that the Arctic shelf hydrocarbon deposits outside of the 200-mile border can be much richer than expected. According to the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, potential hydrocarbon reserves of the central areas of the continental shelf in the Arctic are about 5 billion tons of oil equivalent, whereas the Minister S.E. Donskoy considers these estimates to be minimal[10].

If we consider that the forecast figure in exports of fuel and energy resources of the Russian Federation in 2020, according to the Energy Strategy of Russia for the period up to 2030, should reach 0.8 billion tons of oil equivalent[11], then fossil fuel resources of the central parts of the Arctic shelf may be comparable with the volume of five years of the Russian oil and gas exports at the current level. Speaking about the resource potential of the central areas of the continental shelf, it is important to stress the probability of detection of mineral resources in the central part of the Arctic shelf.

In addition, the sovereignty over the shelf gives a country the right to monitor any activity on it, including, for example, the construction of pipelines. It also assumes responsibility for the country’s environmental protection in the territory. Uncontrolled economic activity outside the areas of national jurisdiction in the area of the “common heritage of mankind” may pose a threat to the environment at the regional and global scale. Therefore, expansion of monitoring of the human activities in the Arctic shelf by the Arctic coastal States, as well as responsibility of those countries for the consequences of such actions can significantly contribute to sustainable development. Under the current circumstances of the non-alignment of the United States to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the zone of the “common heritage of mankind” in the Arctic is not feasible[12]. However, this leaves the question of the legal status of a number of sections of the shelf unresolved, and therefore it defines only a transient, temporary state of affairs.

Given these considerations, identification of the outer limits of the jurisdiction of the coastal states of the Arctic continental shelf is a priority task of the Russian foreign policy, as defined in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation on February 12, 2013[13].

Let’s consider the claims of the Arctic coastal countries for the continental shelf in the Arctic:

Russia ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea by the Federal Law #30-FZ dated February 26, 1998. Russia filed its first application in 2001. However, the Commission considered the data provided insufficient and decided that for unambiguous classification of each of the deep-water bottom uplifts in the Amerasian sub-basin (see Fig. 2), Russia should submit experiment-backed evidence of their continental nature and their structural belonging to the continental margin of the north-eastern Eurasia, as well as develop a consistent model of the evolution of the Arctic, which explains the geological nature of these bottom uplifts[14].

In the absence of these data, the outer limit of the continental shelf in the Amerasian sub-basin cannot be farther than 350 nautical miles from the baselines, i.e. the area, which Russia can claim in the region, will not exceed 400000 km2. At the same time, the use of the second criterion of the limitation of the legal shelf (100 nautical miles from the isobath of 2500 m), which applies only to submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin, will allow to extend the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in the Amerasian subbasin much farther. In this case,the acquired areaof theextended continental shelfof Russia will be1.2 millionsquare km[15]. To date, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, a new version of the application to be submitted, according to the plan, in 2015, is at the final stage of the preparation[16].

  1. The maximumUS claimsin the Arctic Ocean are the Chukchi Cap and the seabed areas adjacent to it to the north andeast, not reachingthe North Pole[17]. In the US a Specialinteragencycoordinating bodyhas been created to substantiate the outer limit ofthe continental shelf- The US Extended Continental Shelf Task Force.More than a dozenAmericanministries,services and agencies take part in its work[18].

Denmark ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea on November 16, 2004. The claims by Denmark apply to a part of the Lomonosov Ridge, which lies to the right of an imaginary line of the equidistance with Canada and further to the north up to the North Pole, and further, to the Russian side of the Arctic, which thus overlaps with the claims of the Russian application of 2001. Denmark submitted its application for extension of its shelf in December 2014. It also claims for the western part of the Western Nansen Basin and in the place of the East Greenland Ridge[19]. It is important to note that in the field of shelf delimitation Denmark has close research collaboration with Canada. In 2005, these two states announced plans to jointly explore water areas of the Arctic Ocean adjacent to their territories and process the received data, which resulted in the signing of a memorandum on cooperation in Ottawa. Denmark has scientific cooperation with all the Arctic coastal states, including Russia.

Canada ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea on November 7, 2003. So far, the country has not applied for extension of its continental shelf. In the “preliminary information”, delivered by Canada to the United Nations on December 6, 2013, only some vague scope of potential Canadian claims is specified: the continental margin of the continental shelf in the Canadian basin, Amundsen basin, on the Lomonosov Ridge and the Alpha Ridge. It is specified that on the Alpha and Lomonosov Ridges Canadian claims concern areas that are located farther than 350 nautical miles from the baselines. It is expected that Canada may acquire approximately 1.5 million km2 of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines. In the “preliminary information” it is indicated that Canada is going to submit a partial application, the timeline is indicated vaguely[20].

Norway ratified the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea on June 24, 1996. It submitted its application in November 2006, claiming for the shelf of the Western part of the Nansen Basin – the same site, which is also claimed by Denmark in its application in 2014[21].

Thus, underwater elevations, which are natural components of the continental margin, belong to the shelf that is claimed in applications of several countries at the same time. The largest of these elevations is the Lomonosov Ridge (in the scientific community there is almost no dispute that the Lomonosov Ridge and other disputed areas of the shelf have a continental origin; scientists’ opinions differ on where exactly these elevations join the mainland[22]). There is a chance that the United Nations Commission on the Law of the Sea recognizes the controversial underwater elevations as a natural component of several continental margins, and, therefore, the right to sovereignty over them by two or three Arctic coastal states at the same time. However, even in this scenario, there is no potential for conflict.

Figure 2. Location of the maingeological structuresandsections of the bottom of theArctic Ocean[23]..

Information note: The Lomonosov Ridge was discovered by Soviet scientists in 1948. It stretches over 1500 – 1700 km and connects the Eurasian continent in the area of the New Siberian Islands (Russia) with the North American continent in the area of Ellesmere Island (Canada) and Greenland (Denmark), effectively dividing the Arctic Ocean into 2 parts – the Pacific and Atlantic (see Fig. 2). In the Pacific part there is the Mendeleev Ridge (Ellesmere – Wrangel Islands). In the central part of the ridge there was found a break. Another name for the ridge is “Alpha”. Also in the Pacific part there is the Chukchi Cap. In the Atlantic part there is the Gakkel Ridge, which is an extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The Lomonosov Ridge and the Gakkel Ridge form two basins in the Atlantic part: the Amundsen basin and the Nansen basin.

From the above it follows that the so-called “control” over the North Pole by an Arctic country with the shelf in the Arctic Ocean may be solely the result of consideration of applications of the countries concerned by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf based on scientific evidence that these countries will collect and present in support of their applications. And the “prize” will be “awarded” to the country that will perform this task in the most compelling and scientific way – unless otherwise stipulated in mutual agreements by scientifically recognized claimant countries.

With regard to the thesis of the “militarization” of the Arctic region, the reason for making such estimates is attributed to the overlapping of applications, that is, due to the intersection of shelf territories claimed by coastal Arctic states (see Fig. 3). If the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf recognizes that such claims are justified, these countries will have to hold diplomatic negotiations on the delimitation of the shelf on the basis of existing norms of the international maritime law. It is impossible to militarily impose a particular solution to the problem. This is the only possible approach and the only possible vision of the claimant states for resolving disputes, which is reflected in the Ilulissat Declaration of May 28, 2008[24].

It is important to note that in the 2013 Kiruna Declaration of the Arctic Council all the Arctic countries (including the US) have committed themselves to act in accordance with the international law, including the law of the sea[25]. It is significant that it was the potential for the use of international legal mechanisms of delimitation of the disputed territories of the Arctic shelf that the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed in its official commentary published in connection with the Danish application for the continental shelf in 2014[26].

Figure 3. Scheme of the Arctic shelf: 200-mile zone and the territorial claims of countries, including the application of Denmark in 2014.

Source: Denmark challenges Russia and Canada over the North Pole // BBC News Europe. Digital resource. URL:  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30481309

 

2,000 km

1,000 miles

Alaska (USA), Russia, Norway, Greenland (Denmark), Canada

The North Pole, the Lomonosov Ridge

Applications/claims:

Danish application: 2014.

Russia

Canada

USA

200-miles line

 

It should be noted that there are two main principles of possible delimitation of maritime areas and the Arctic shelf between states. According to the “median line method”, delimitation is done based on the principle of the equidistance of the boundary line from the shoreline (or base points of the coastline) of the neighboring states. According to another method – “sectoral” – the pole is seen as a point from which straight lines are drawn along longitudes. The specific method of drawing dividing lines between the neighboring countries is not specified by the Convention on the Law of the Sea, except for referring to the principle of mutual consent and justice[27].

Currently, the Russian Federation already has positive experience in the field of contractual delimitation of the continental shelf in the Arctic (namely in the eastern part of the Western Nansen Basin). On 15 September 2010, Russia signed an agreement with Norway “On Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean”.

Summarizing the above, it should be emphasized that allegations of futility, politicization and high conflict potential of the international process of delimitation of the continental shelf in the Arctic are incorrect and unfounded. On the contrary, we should talk about the strategic importance of this issue for all Arctic coastal countries, as well as about the effective mechanism for its solution embedded in the international law which is based on objective and impartial scientific assessment of the seabed, as well as openness of the Arctic coastal countries for a dialogue, their willingness to cooperate and find mutually beneficial solutions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (Martin Lidegaard) in connection with the Danish application to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, said: “This is not an act of aggression. This is an attempt to fairly and accurately provide data of the geological expertise. We hope for constructive cooperation with experts from the United Nations and the subsequent bilateral negotiations with neighboring countries”[28].

The delimitation of the continental shelf in the Arctic is quite complicated and can take a long time. However, objectively and fairly established boundaries may for centuries provide the basis for efficient studying and development of the region, as well as for strengthening of the close partnership among the Arctic coastal states.

 

 

 

Bibliography

  1. “A new cold war: Denmark gets aggressive, stakes huge claim in Race for the Arctic” // National Post. Digital resource. URL: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/15/a-new-cold-war-denmark-gets-aggressive-stakes-huge-claim-in-race-for-the-arctic/; “Denmark challenges Russia with the Arctic claim” // PRIO Blogs. Digital resource. URL: http://blogs.prio.org/ArcticPolitics/2014/12/denmark-challenges-russia-with-the-arctic-claim/; “Canada sparks Cold War over Arctic” // The Chronicle Gerald. Digital resource. URL: [http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1175277-canada-sparks-cold-war-over-arctic].
  2. “Denmark lays formal claim to North Pole” // Financial Times. URL: [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7e66b1c-8442-11e4-8cc5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3QCY2ciY1]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).
  3. «The Russian application for the Arctic shelf will be ready by the end of the year». // Rossiyskaya gazeta. URL: http://www.rg.ru/2014/06/30/reg-szfo/arktika.html. (Accessed 19.12.2014).
  4. «The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation will submit an application to the United Nations for expansion of the limits of the Arctic shelf in spring 2015» // ITAR-TASS. Digital resource. URL: [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1540165]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).
  5. Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle. Digital resource. URL: [http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf].
  6. Doc. SPLOS/73. 14 June 2001. P.10. Para. 61.
  7. Kongeriget Danmarks Strategi for Arktis 2011–2020. // Danish Embassy in Canada, official website. [Digital resource]. URL:[http://canada.um.dk/da/~/media/Canada/Documents/Other/Arktis_Rapport_DA.pdf] Page 24. (Accessed 15.12.2014).
  8. Regeringen og Grønlands selvstyre indgiver i dag krav på kontinentalsoklen nord for Grønland. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, official website. Digital resource. URL: [http://um.dk/da/udenrigspolitik/udenrigspolitiske-nyheder/newsdisplaypage/?newsid=7d92317d-823e-4412-8bd4-5cbcadccb45e]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).
  9. The Extended Continental Shelf Project. URL: http://continentalshelf.gov/about.html. (Accessed 19.12.2014).
  10. TheIlulissatDeclaration. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).
  11. VoronkovL.S. TheArcticfor 8. Evolution of the role of the NATO in the Arctic. // Russia in global politics. Digital resource. URL: [http://globalaffairs.ru/number/Arktika-na-vosmerykh-16045]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).
  12. Vylegzhanin A.N. Non-participation in the Convention on the Law of the Sea gives advantages to the USA. // RIA Novosti. Digital resource. URL: [http://ria.ru/arctic_news/20120719/704132667-print.html]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).
  13. Gubanov A.I. Delimitation of the Arctic continental shelf: international law problems and perspectives. Monograph. – M.: IKD “Zerzalo-M”, 2015.
  14. Gudev P.A. Challenges and threats to oil and gas production in the Arctic. // Ecologichesky vestnik Rossii, # 2 (15).
  15. EvdokimovYu. Hot Arctic //Battle on the Ice: the Arctic shelf in the world politics and economics of the 21st century / Eds: V. Andrianov, N. Vasiliev, B.M. Golkin, 2009.
  16. Canada claimed for the Lomonosov Ridge. Article. Digital resource. URL: [http://pro-arctic.ru/06/12/2013/press/6010]. (Accessed 15.12.2014).
  17. The commentary by the Information and Press Department of the MFA on the Danish application for the Arctic continental shelf. MFA of the Russian Federation, official website. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/C4533848E85A09A0C3257DB00053569C]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).
  18. 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.conventions.ru/view_base.php?id=34]. (Accessed 19.12.2014).
  19. The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Approved by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin on February 12, 2013. Subparagraphs 31, 38, 73. The official website of the President of the Russian Federation. URL: [http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d447a0ce9f5a96bdc3.pdf]. Accessed [15.12.2014].
  20. Konyshev, V.N., A.A. Sergunin. The Arctic in the international politics: cooperation or competition? TheRussianInstituteforStrategicStudies, 2011. URL: [http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/11/01/1269302651/%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%A2%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%98.pdf]. (Accessed 19.12.2014).
  21. TheenergystrategyofRussiatill 2030. The Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation, official website. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.minenergo.gov.ru/activity/energostrategy/]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).

 

[1]“A new cold war: Denmark gets aggressive, stakes huge claim in Race for the Arctic” // National Post. Электронныйресурс. URL: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/15/a-new-cold-war-denmark-gets-aggressive-stakes-huge-claim-in-race-for-the-arctic/; “Denmark challenges Russia with the Arctic claim” // PRIO Blogs. Digital resource. URL: http://blogs.prio.org/ArcticPolitics/2014/12/denmark-challenges-russia-with-the-arctic-claim/; “Canada sparks Cold War over Arctic” // The Chronicle Gerald. Digital resource. URL: [http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1175277-canada-sparks-cold-war-over-arctic].

 

[2]1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.conventions.ru/view_base.php?id=34]. (Accessed 19.12.2014).

[3] Konyshev, V.N., A.A. Sergunin. The Arctic in the international politics: cooperation or competition? The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies. Moscow, 2011. URL: [http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/11/01/1269302651/%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%A2%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%98.pdf]. (Accessed 19.12.2014). P. 42.

[4]Doc. SPLOS/73. 14 June 2001. P.10. Para. 61.

[5] Gudev P.A. Challenges and threats to oil and gas production in the Arctic. // Ecologichesky vestnik Rossii, #2 (15). Pp. 34-35.

[6] “Denmark lays formal claim to North Pole” // Financial Times. URL: [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7e66b1c-8442-11e4-8cc5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3QCY2ciY1]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).

[7]Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle. Digital resource. URL: [http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf].

[8] Kongeriget Danmarks Strategi for Arktis 2011–2020. // Danish Embassy in Canada, official website. [Digital resource]. URL:[http://canada.um.dk/da/~/media/Canada/Documents/Other/Arktis_Rapport_DA.pdf] P. 24. (Accessed 15.12.2014).

[9] Canada claimed for the Lomonosov Ridge. Article. Digital resource. URL: [http://pro-arctic.ru/06/12/2013/press/6010]. (Accessed: 15.12.2014).

[10]“The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment: the Russian Federation will submit an application to the United Nations for expansion of the limits of the Arctic shelf in spring 2015” // ITAR-TASS. Digital resource. URL: [http://itar-tass.com/politika/1540165]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).

[11]The energy strategy of Russia till 2030. The Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation, official website. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.minenergo.gov.ru/activity/energostrategy/]. (Accessed 15.01.2015).

[12] Vylegzhanin A.N. Non-participation in the Convention on the Law of the Sea gives advantages to the USA. // RIA Novosti. Digital resource. URL: [http://ria.ru/arctic_news/20120719/704132667-print.html]. (Accessed: 15.01.2015).

[13] The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Approved by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin on February 12, 2013. Subparagraphs 31, 38, 73. The official website of the President of the Russian Federation. URL: [http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d447a0ce9f5a96bdc3.pdf]. Accessed: [15.12.2014].

[14] Konyshev, V.N., A.A. Sergunin. The Arctic in the international politics: cooperation or competition? The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies. Moscow, 2011. URL: http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/11/01/1269302651/%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%A2%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%98.pdf. (Accessed: 19.12.2014). P. 44.

[15]Same. Pp. 44-45.

[16] «The Russian application for the Arctic shelf will be ready by the end of the year». // Rossiyskaya gazeta. URL: http://www.rg.ru/2014/06/30/reg-szfo/arktika.html. (Accessed: 19.12.2014). P. 44.

[17] Gubanov A.I. Delimitation of the Arctic continental shelf: international law problems and perspectives. Monograph. – M.: IKD “Zerzalo-M”, 2015. P 244.

[18]The Extended Continental Shelf Project. Information from the website: www.continentalshelf.gov URL: http://continentalshelf.gov/about.html. (Accessed: 19.12.2014).

[19] Gubanov A.I. Delimitation of the Arctic continental shelf: international law problems and perspectives. Monograph. – M.: IKD “Zerzalo-M”, 2015. PP. 244-247.

[20]Same. PP. 247-248.

[21]Same, PP. 248 – 249.

[22] Evdokimov Yu. Hot Arctic //Battle on the Ice: the Arctic shelf in the world politics and economics of the 21st century / Eds: V. Andrianov, N. Vasiliev, B.M. Golkin, 2009. P. 37.

[23] Gubanov A.I. Delimitation of the Arctic continental shelf: international law problems and perspectives. Monograph. – M.: IKD “Zerzalo-M”, 2015. P. 308.

[24]The Ilulissat Declaration. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf]. (Accessed: 15.01.2015).

[25] Voronkov L.S. The Arctic for 8. Evolution of the role of the NATO in the Arctic. // Russia in global politics. Digital resource. URL: [http://globalaffairs.ru/number/Arktika-na-vosmerykh-16045]. (Accessed: 15.01.2015).

[26] The commentary by the Information and Press Department of the MFA on the Danish application for the Arctic continental shelf. MFA of the Russian Federation, official website. Digital resource. URL: [http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/C4533848E85A09A0C3257DB00053569C]. (Accessed: 15.01.2015).

[27] Konyshev, V.N., A.A. Sergunin. The Arctic in the international politics: cooperation or competition? The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies. Moscow, 2011. URL: [http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/11/01/1269302651/%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%A2%D0%98%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%98.pdf]. (Accessed: 19.12.2014). P. 43.

[28] Regeringen og Grønlands selvstyre indgiver i dag krav på kontinentalsoklen nord for Grønland. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, official website. Digital resource. URL: [http://um.dk/da/udenrigspolitik/udenrigspolitiske-nyheder/newsdisplaypage/?newsid=7d92317d-823e-4412-8bd4-5cbcadccb45e]. (Accessed: 15.01.2015).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *