Arctic
Quicktabs: Keywords
A senior Russian government official on Tuesday formally presented to the United Nations his country’s claim to Arctic Ocean seabed, including an area under the North Pole.
[ More ]The rapid retreat of ocean ice cover, a newly emboldened Russia and the covetous gaze of nations keen to exploit new shipping lanes and vast mineral wealth are putting the Arctic’s long-standing stability under pressure.
[ More ]The authors find that UNCLOS has been successful in making the Arctic one of the most peaceful regions on the planet, with "the potential for a major inter-state conflict in the Arctic has generally been regarded as quite low."
[ More ]Russia has submitted its bid for vast territories in the Arctic to the United Nations, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. The ministry said in a statement that Russia is claiming 1.2 million square kilometers (over 463,000 square miles) of Artic sea shelf extending more than 350 nautical miles (about 650 kilometers) from the shore.
[ More ]
On Thursday, five Arctic nations signed a declaration promising their fishing vessels will stay out of a 1.1 million-square-mile zone in the central Arctic Ocean, an area bigger than the Mediterranean Sea.
[ More ]The author argues that "[t]he U.S. would be wise to ratify the United Nation Convention on the Law of Sea [UNCLOS], a convention that the U.S. Navy and coast guard already abide by, allowing the United States to utilize the international legal framework to successfully petition its case in the Arctic. In a world growing in tensions between old foes, the Arctic could prove an opportunity to cool down tensions and rebuild trust between the West and Russia."
[ More ]Washington does not think that Russia is militarizing the Arctic, US Special Representative for the Arctic Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr. told TASS in an exclusive interview on Wednesday.
[ More ]The author argues that "unless Congress and President Barack Obama act decisively to authorize and fund construction of new, modern icebreakers for the Coast Guard, the United States risks losing its capability to patrol the Arctic at the moment when such a capability is more important than ever".
[ More ]Artur Chilingarov, who until recently was President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy to the Arctic said in a recent speech at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø that cooperation with other Arctic states is an important part of Russia’s Arctic strategy.
[ More ]Pages
One future change in the Arctic region is greater accessibility to, and availability of, natural resources, including offshore oil and gas, minerals, and fisheries. The Arctic contains 10 percent of the world’s known petroleum reserves and approximately 25 percent of its undiscovered reserves.18 The U.S. exclusive economic zone has a potential thirty billion barrels of oil reserves and 221 billion cubic feet in natural gas reserves.19 Minerals available for extraction in the Arctic include manganese, copper, cobalt, zinc, and gold. Coupled with a rise in global demand for natural oil and gas resources and improved accessibility, the Arctic has become a new focus for oil companies looking for untapped resources. Already $2.6 billion has been spent on active oil and gas leases in the Chukchi Sea.20 Yet the extraction of these minerals and petroleum reserves depends heavily upon development and deployment of resilient technology that can function in such harsh conditions, marked by lack of infrastructure and long distances to markets.
Other Benefits. We should also join the Convention now to steer its implementation. The Convention’s institutions are up and running, and we – the country with the most to gain or lose on law of the sea issues – are sitting on the sidelines. As I mentioned, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has received submissions from over 40 countries without the participation of a U.S. commissioner. Recommendations made in that body could create precedents, positive and negative, on the future outer limit of the U.S. shelf. We need to be on the inside to protect and advance our interests. Moreover, in fora outside the Convention, the provisions of the Convention are also being actively applied. Only as a party can we exert the level of influence that reflects our status as the world’s foremost maritime power.
Ratification of the Convention is an urgent matter. Although a state has up to ten years after it has ratified the Convention to map and submit proposed limits of its continental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, by that time it may be too late.196 Global climate change has caused parts of the Arctic Seacap to begin melting, making it navigable for the first time.197 While this is promising for underwater mining industries, these environmental effects have attracted a great deal of attention and the international community is cooperating to reverse them.198 Instead of engaging in fruitless political battles with its strategic adversaries, the United States should move quickly to ratify the Convention and focus its energy on extracting the resources beneath the Arctic as quickly as possible.199 Ratification “would allow full implementation of the rights afforded by the convention, [allowing member nations] to protect coastal and ocean resources.”200
In light of a global climate crisis and the escalating battle over the valuable resources below the North Pole, Congress should make ratification of UNCLOS one of its top priorities. Until the United States is a treaty member, it cannot enjoy voting privileges on the influential ISA (on which it would be granted a permanent seat) nor submit claims to the CLCS to gain legal rights to the resources in the North Pole‘s seabed. The concerns that influenced President Reagan not to sign the treaty in 1982 have largely disappeared, and the remaining concerns are easily refuted. U.S. ratification of UNCLOS makes sense not just for economic, national security, and environmental reasons, but also to enhance the diplomatic standing of the United States. Accession to UNCLOS now would be a powerful and meaningful gesture on behalf of the United States, symbolizing a recommitment to global cooperation.
The Convention also gives the United States an opportunity to expand its sovereignty rights over resources on and under the ocean floor beyond 200 nautical miles to the end of its continental shelf, up to 350 nautical miles.140 This mechanism is especially valuable to the United States as it would maximize legal certainty regarding the United States’ rights to energy resources in large offshore areas, including the areas of the Arctic Ocean. However, the United States must ratify the Convention for its claims to be internationally recognized.141 Not surprisingly, the American oil companies favor ratification, as it will allow them to explore oceans beyond 200 miles off the coast, where evolving technologies now make oil and natural gas recoverable.142 If the United States ratifies the Convention it could expand its areas for mineral exploration and production by more than 291,383 square miles.143 The United States’ claim under article 76 would add an area in the Arctic (Chukchi Cap) roughly equal to the area of West Virginia.144 With a successful claim the United States would have the sole right to the exploitation of all the resources on and under the Arctic Ocean bottom. These potential energy resources could make significant contributions to United States energy independence. Because the Convention is the only means of assuring access to the mineral resources beneath the Arctic Ocean, American companies “wishing to engage in deep seabed mining operations will have no choice but to proceed under the flag of a country that has adhered to the treaty.”145
As the global climate is warming up rapidly, leading to ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean, Arctic nations are confronting the prospect of new rights over the Arctic’s vast natural resources. All Arctic nations— Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia—except for the United States, ratified the Convention and have already submitted, or are preparing to submit, proposed limits for their extended continental shelves to the Commission. The submissions will enable these countries to obtain international recognition over their extended continental shelves in the Arctic, including exclusive rights over oil and gas reserves.
As a nation with an extensive coastline and a continental shelf with enormous oil and gas reserves, the United States has much more to gain than lose from joining the Convention. Furthermore, the uncertainties stemming from the customary law make it a less effective measure to protect American interests. Only a universal regime such as the Convention can adequately safeguard the United States’ interest in the Arctic Ocean. The best way to guarantee access to the Arctic’s resources is for the United States to become a party to the Convention.
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.
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
FINDING: The committee has studied the implications of the failure of the United States to ratify the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) from the standpoint of potential impacts on national security in the context of a changing climate. As climate change affords increased access to the Arctic, it is envisioned that there will be new opportunities for natural resource exploration and recovery, as well as increased ship traffic of all kinds, and with that a need for broadened naval partnership and cooperation, and a framework for settling potential disputes and conflicts. By remaining outside the Convention, the United States makes it more difficult for U.S. naval forces to have maximum operating flexibility in the Arctic and complicates negotiations with maritime partners for coordinated search and rescue operations in the region. (Chapter 1)
RECOMMENDATION: The ability of U.S. naval forces to carry out their missions would be assisted if the United States were to ratify UNCLOS. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard continue to put forward the naval forces’ view of the potential value and operational impact of UNCLOS ratification on U.S. naval operations, especially in the Arctic region. (Chapter 1)
In the case of the Arctic Ocean, the five Arctic coastal states are Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States. Russia ratified UNCLOS in 1997. In December 2001, Russian officials submitted a claim that 120 million hectares of underwater terrain between the Lomonosov and Mendeleev ridges be confirmed as a continuation of the Siberian shelf. Norway ratified UNCLOS in 1996 and submitted its claim in November 2006. Canada and Norway ratified UNCLOS in 2003 and 2004, respectively, and are in the process of preparing claims for submission. The United States has not ratified UNCLOS. However, the United States is working closely with Canada to gather and analyze data through the Extended Continental Shelf Project for the submission of Canada’s claim. This effort is led by the U.S. Continental Shelf Task Force, an interagency body, chaired by the Department of State with co-vice chairs from NOAA and the Department of the Interior. Both U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard representatives participate on the Task Force. According to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, the United States could lay claim to an area in the Arctic of about 450,000 square kilometers and the seabed resources therein. However, as a non-party to UNCLOS, the United States cannot participate as a member of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; neither can the United States submit a claim under Article 76.
Pages
Russia, Denmark, Norway, and Canada are staking their claims to Arctic resources but the United States, which has conducted research on how far the continental shelf extends from Alaska toward the North Pole, cannot submit any of its evidence because it is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
- Russia asserting its rights in Arctic to gain access to resources
- Several countries including China and Japan are lobbying for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council
- China using local companies as way of gaining access to Arctic resources
- Ratification of UNCLOS is necessary to exploit Arctic oil and gas
- ... and 6 more quote(s)
By remaining outside the Convention, the United States makes it more difficult for U.S. naval forces to have maximum operating flexibility in the Arctic and complicates negotiations with maritime partners for coordinated search and rescue operations in the region. The ability of U.S. naval forces to carry out their missions would be assisted if the United States were to ratify UNCLOS.
The U.S. can exercise its rights under the 1958 Convention on the High Seas to assert that it is permitted to mine and navigate in its Extended Continental Shelf. Ratifying UNCLOS would constrict the ability of the U.S. to respond to challenges to these rights by forcing all further negotiation to occur through the CLCS.
- U.S. should assert its rights to develop in the Arctic by invoking the existing convention on the high seas
- US can still legally assert a claim in the Arctic without being party to UNCLOS
- U.S. scuttling of Russia's initial Arctic claim shows it can still influence CLCS as a non member
- US successful experience with challenging Russia's claim shows that even as a non party to UNCLOS the US is not a helpless bystander to CLCS
- ... and 9 more quote(s)
By remaining outside of UNCLOS, the U.S. is ceding its leadership role in the region in a number of ways. First, and most importantly for the U.S. strategic and economic interests, by remaining outside of the treaty the U.S. is not able to submit its claims for the extended continental shelf in the Arctic to the CLCS, preventing U.S. industries from claiming mineral rights. Secondly, existing Arctic governance regimes are based on and rely on UNCLOS and the U.S. non-party status prevents it from contributing as a full partner, weakening the overall Arctic governance regime. Finally, U.S.
- U.S. is being left behind in race for the Arctic as a non-party to UNCLOS
- U.S. has limited time to ratify convention to secure access to Arctic resources
- U.S. national interest harmed by remaining outside UNCLOS regime and unable to take advantage of Arctic boom
- U.S. should make ratification of UNCLOS a top priority to ensure it doesn't lose out on opening of Arctic
- ... and 36 more quote(s)
- U.S. has significant interests in untapped mineral wealth in Arctic
- Other nations are pursuing Arctic claims to the detriment of the U.S.
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS complicates U.S. naval operations in the Arctic
- UNCLOS is best regime for Arctic Governance
- U.S. can't secure claims to Arctic resources through CLCS as a non-party to UNCLOS
- Russia poses a strategic threat to the U.S. in the Arctic
UNCLOS represents the consensus of decades of debate on how best to govern shared ocean resources and to handle disputes over border conflicts. The Arctic nations have settled on UNCLOS, adopting it in their laws and subsequent agreements, and it forms the basis for governance of the Arctic region.
- Antarctica treaty is poor alternative to UNCLOS for resolving Arctic disputes because it was based on environmental protection, not resource exploitation
- Abandoning UNCLOS in Arctic would undermine all principles UNCLOS is based-on, encouraging non-diplomatic solutions to territorial disputes
- Law of the sea is an ideal framework for arctic governance
- U.S. needs to ratify UNCLOS to establish shared law in the Arctic to avoid conflict
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
Strategic environment and level of cooperation between Russia and the United States in the Arctic will be based on the state of their bilateral relations in general, and not on the U.S. decision of whether or not to ratify the UN Law of the Sea.
- US ratification of UNCLOS will not boost capacity to challenge Russian claims, disputes likely to be resolved outside of convention
- Russia will defend its claims in the Arctic but is unlikely to resort to military means
- Bilateral relations between U.S. and Russia will be more important to Arctic security than U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS
- Russia has effectively removed option of resolving border disputes through UNCLOS in its signing statements under Article 298
- No major disagreement over ECS claims between U.S. and Russia
- Arctic nations are only cooperating through international institutions out of political convenience
China is taking concrete diplomatic steps to ensure that it becomes a player in the Arctic game and eventually will have what it regards as its fair share of access to Arctic resources and sea routes.
- China's dependence on resources could force it to become more aggressive in its bid to gain access to Arctic resources
- China views coming resource struggle in Arctic as possibly leading to military conflict
- China actively lobbying for inclusion in the Arctic Council to gain access to Arctic resources
- China actively pursuing Arctic science and expanding relations with Arctic countries
- ... and 7 more quote(s)