Who Gets the Oil?: Arctic Energy Exploration in Uncertain Waters and the Need for Universal Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Evidence

Russia planning to resubmit its claim to CLCS in 2013

In December 2001, Russia submitted an extended continental shelf claim that included 1.2 million square kilometers of Arctic territory, including the North Pole (which is nearly half of the Arctic Ocean), to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).60 Because the CLCS requested that Russia revise its submission, Russia is currently in the process of documenting its claim.61 Notably, it has been reported that Russia is postponing submitting its claim to the CLCS until 2013 in order to wait until Canada and Denmark submit claims of their own.62 Ultimately, if the CLCS concludes that Russia's claim is legitimate,63 Russia could win the sole right to exploit resources beneath a significant part of the Arctic seabed, an area that holds an "estimated 10 billion metric tons of hydrocarbons."

[ Page 514 ]

Wilder, Meagan P. "Who Gets the Oil?: Arctic Energy Exploration in Uncertain Waters and the Need for Universal Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea." Houston Journal of International Law. Vol. 32, No. 2 (2009-2010): 505-544. [ More (7 quotes) ]

Abandoning UNCLOS in Arctic would undermine all principles UNCLOS is based-on, encouraging non-diplomatic solutions to territorial disputes

Although some policy officials and scholars argue countries should abandon UNCLOS and implement a new legal regime,²⁰⁷ such action would undermine the effectiveness of the existing legal norms provided by UNCLOS. Abandoning UNCLOS would only weaken current international Arctic law, create economic uncertainty, and pose potential security issues.208Pedrozo, Raul. "Is it Time for the United States to Join the Law of the Sea Convention." Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce. Vol. 41, No. 2 (April 2010): 151-166. [ More (9 quotes) ] In addition, the formulation, adoption, and implementation of new international Arctic legislation would, at best, be a difficult, if not impossible, process.²⁰⁹ Considering the enormous economic wealth at stake, coupled with the political power of today's oil, abandoning UNCLOS might erroneously be interpreted by some as encouraging military solutions to Arctic territorial disputes.

[ Page 532 ]

Without consensus on legal framework for Arctic, territorial disputes could result in military conflict between US and Russia

Without a solid legal foundation in place, current Arctic territorial disputes could possibly result in military conflicts, particularly with Russia. Tomorrow's future can be predicted by looking at Russia's current natural gas economic blackmail of Europe.211 Such blackmail has been described as "undermining European security."212 Some scholars have noted that, "Russia has not ceased its efforts to use energy as a weapon," and predict "Russia is likely to use its energy muscle to impose its geopolitical agenda on its neighbors, today and in the future." In fact, Russia's new national security strategy, released in May 2009, raises the prospect of military conflict over energy reserves in the Arctic. Russia's Security Council created the strategy to evaluate potential security threats to Russia over the next decade. With tension mounting among Russia and other Arctic nations, the strategy provocatively explains, "'[w]ith the ongoing competition for [Arctic] resources, attempts to use military force to solve emerging problems cannot be excluded- and this might destroy the balance of forces on Russia's and its allies' borders."' A recently released Kremlin document on Arctic policy also "refers to the deployment of armed forces in the Arctic zone which are 'capable of ensuring security under various military and political circumstances."

[ Page 532-533 ]

Abandoning UNCLOS framework in Arctic could lead to military confrontation with Russia, working within framework best way to resolve disputes

Russia has staked its claim in the Arctic by symbolically planting a flag at the bottom of the North Pole and submitting an extended continental shelf claim to UNCLOS.219 The Kremlin has also established Russia's economic interest in the Arctic by describing the Arctic as "'capable in large part of fulfilling Russia's needs for hydrocarbon resources, aqueous biological resources, and other forms of strategic raw material."'220 Abandoning UNCLOS would only invite confrontation and possibly trigger Russian acts of aggression against other Arctic nations. Russia's attack on Georgia in August 2008 illustrates this very real possibility. Tension between Russia and other Arctic nations will remain high as they continue to compete for Arctic territory. Maintaining UNCLOS as a viable legal framework for settling Arctic territorial claims should help avert potential confrontations between Russia and other UNCLOS members.222 At least UNCLOS provides its members an alternative to Russia's "newfound assertiveness and heavy-handed conduct,"223 and should therefore remain firmly in place.

[ Page 533-534 ]

US will be unable to participate in discussions over future of Arctic as a non-party to UNCLOS

Because of the accelerated Polar Ice Cap melting, Arctic nations now have unprecedented access to vast wealth through their extended territorial claims. As explained by Senator Richard Lugar, an UNCLOS supporter, "the CLCS '[w]ill soon begin making decisions on claims to continental shelf areas,"' and if the United States does not ratify the Convention, the United States 'will not be able to protect our national interest."^'262 Critics of UNCLOS assert the Convention would permit other nations to intrude on the United States' sovereignty, thereby undermining its national security interests.²⁶³ Those arguing for UNCLOS' ratification, however, postulate that ratification would strengthen U.S. sovereignty and security.²⁶⁴ In fact, unless the United States ratifies UNCLOS, the United States will be less able to promote and protect its self-interest as it will be "left without a voice when the Arctic region is being divided amongst other nations."²⁶⁵ Specifically, the United States will not be able to participate in the extended continental shelf process pursuant to Article 76 when Russia and other Arctic nations submit their extended territorial claims to the CLCS.²⁶⁶ This will not only put the United States at a significant disadvantage in the Arctic region, but will also undermine the current balance of socioeconomic power among the Arctic nations. For example, without UNCLOS ratification by the United States, Russia will be able "to pursue its [Arctic] claims without opposition from America" via UNCLOS.

[ Page 540-541 ]

Peaceful resolution of Arctic territorial disputes will be a boon to global economy and stability

Because nations that actively seek Arctic resources stand to obtain strategic advantages, efficient and effective resolutions of Arctic boundary disputes are of vital importance. As the Polar Ice Cap continues to melt, Arctic nations will continue to compete for Arctic territory and accompanying natural resources. The efficient, effective, and peaceful resolution of Arctic territorial disputes will have a profound impact on geopolitics, property ownership, and international law- especially in an economic climate of escalating oil prices.²⁸⁴ Although the international resolution of Arctic territorial disputes will require immediate and bold diplomatic action, as explained by scholar Bruce Jackson, "[t]he fact that the Arctic, more than any other populated region of the world, requires the collaboration of so many disciplines and points of view to be understood at all, is a benefit rather than a burden."

[ Page 544 ]

Current US arctic policy directive, initiated by President Bush, is to abide by UNCLOS until US is able to ratify it

As previously discussed, less than two weeks before President George W. Bush left the White House, the Bush Administration issued a Presidential Directive asserting that "[t]he United States is an Arctic nation."²⁶⁸ The Directive declares that "[t]he United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests."²⁶⁹ In addition to asserting "lawful claims of United States sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction in the Arctic region,"²⁷⁰ the Directive encourages U.S. agencies to "[tlake all actions necessary to establish the outer limit of the continental shelf appertaining to the United States, in the Arctic and in other regions, to the fullest extent permitted under international law."

The terms of the Directive essentially instruct the United States to abide by UNCLOS and map the U.S. continental seabed in order to submit an extended continental shelf claim to the CLCS.²⁷² In fact, when President Bush issued the Directive, he expressly called on the U.S. Senate to ratify UNCLOS, explaining that UNCLOS offers "[tihe most effective way to achieve international recognition and legal certainty for our extended continental shelf."²⁷³ Succeeding Vice President Biden as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Senator John Kerry also said he would advocate for ratification of UNCLOS²⁷⁴ and would like to bring the Convention to a vote this year.²⁷⁵ As explained by Kerry, "'[i]n order to guarantee secure borders ... and protect our marine resources, we must become full partners with the other Arctic nations and ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea."'²⁷⁶ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also endorses the UNCLOS and stated during her confirmation hearings that ratifying the Convention would be a priority.

[ Page 541-542 ]

Who Gets the Oil?: Arctic Energy Exploration in Uncertain Waters and the Need for Universal Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Quicktabs: Citation