UNCLOS and the Balance of Environmental and Economic Resources in the Arctic
Quicktabs: Citation
The same chemical, organic, and radiological pollutants that contaminate the ecosystems of the rest of the planet pose particular problems for the Arctic. The freezing temperatures of the Arctic, both on land and at sea, prevent pollutants from breaking down into non-toxic constituent components.20 For instance, although the Arctic nations stopped using leaded gasoline more than a decade ago, the measurable lead in fish and wildlife in the area has not declined.21 In addition to the cold, the currents which flow to the Arctic from all over the world bring as much as 60% of the pollutants ultimately sited in the Arctic from somewhere else.22 Thus, the failure to include non-Arctic nations in future Arctic clean-up efforts would leave the majority of incoming pollutants unaddressed.
In spite of the fact that the United States has not formally adopted UNCLOS, the applicability of the Convention's Articles governing sovereignty over the continental shelf to the United States-namely Articles 76 through 85-is for several reasons not seriously in dispute. First, many writers contend that Article 76 has become a defacto part of customary international law because of its wide adoption-either via ratification of the Convention itself or via unilateral laws modeled after the Convention.47
Second, the United States has repeatedly demonstrated its intent to be bound by the provisions of UNCLOS not relating to Part XI, which prohibits mining on the deep-sea beds. For instance, after refusing to sign the treaty in 1983, President Reagan announced his intention that the United States nevertheless act in accordance with UNCLOS.48 Although it never reached a floor vote, President Clinton referred UNCLOS to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1994.49 The Bush administration similarly pushed for ratification of the Convention, likely because it found "that the Convention's navigational and national security benefits far outweigh any costs to the U.S."50 UNCLOS has found similar support in the decisions of the federal courts.51
The economic importance of the energy resources trapped under the Arctic seabed is difficult to overstate. In 2007, Alaska produced 722,000 barrels of oil per day.96 This is only a fraction of the state's 1988 production peak of 2,017,000 barrels of oil per day.97 Today, Alaskan oil production accounts for more than sixteen percent of all U.S. production; in 1988, it was more than a third. Natural gas is a significant energy resource in Alaska (433.5 billion cubic feet are marketed from Alaska per year) but contributes only 2.2% to the U.S. market.98 U.S. Arctic oil exploitation pales, however, in comparison with that of the other Arctic nations.99 Norway, for instance, has produced dramatically more oil from its Arctic sea beds than the United States has over similar periods. In 2007, Norway produced 2,564,884 barrels of oil per day compared to Alaska's mere 722,000 barrels per day; approximately 500,000 barrels per day more than Alaska's 1988 peak.100 The other Arctic nations each produce significant quantities of oil as well.101