A new Arctic conquest: The Arctic outer continental margin

Nordic Journal of International Law

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 465-480

  Kunoy, Bjørn ^a  

^a Department of Foreign Affairs   (Faroe Islands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36749043696     PISSN: 09027351     EISSN: 15718107     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/090273507X257058     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. ICJ, Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (hereafter Tunisia v. Libya), ICJ Reports (1982), p. 66, para. 87.
2. ICJ, Fisheries Case, ICJ Reports (1951), p. 116, para 132.
3. ICJ, Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (hereafter Gulf of Maine), ICJ Reports (1978), p. 36, para. 86.
4. Article 76(1) of the Convention.
5. Article 76(8) reads as follows: "Information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the tetritorial sea. is measured shall be submitted by the coastal State to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf set up under Annex II on the basis of equitable geographical representation. The Commission shall make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf. The limits of the shelf established, by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be final and binding."
6. In geological terms the continental slope is defined by the International Hydrographic Organization as "that part of the continental margin that lies between the shelf and the rise" whereas the continental rise is defined as "that part of the continental margin lying between the continental slope and the deep ocean floor.", see International Hydrographie Organization, A Manual on Technical Aspects of the UN Convention an the Law of the Sea: 1982, 1990, pp. 12-13.
7. R. W. Smith and G. Taft, 'Legal Aspects of the Continental Shelf, in P.J. Cook and CM. Carleton (eds.), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (New York, Oxford University Press 2000), p. 17.
8. Rule 5(1) of Annex 1 of the CLCS rules of procedure.
9. The burden is on the submitting coastal State to inform the CLCS if its outer continental margin claim overlaps a third State's claims, see Rule 2(a) of the CLCS rules of procedure.
10. C. Symmons, Ireland and the Law of the Sea (Dublin, Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell 2000), p. 213.
11. Norway consented, without prejudice to the bilateral delimitation of the bilateral delimitation of the continental shelf between Norway and the Russian Federation, to the Commission considering and making recommendations on the basis of the Russian submission with regard to the socalled "Loop Hole" in the central Barents Sea beyond 200 NM from the baselines of Norway and the Russian Federation, see notification CLCS.01.2001.LOS/NOR.
12. For an overview of the Russian submission see A.G.U. Elferink, C. Johnson, "Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf" and "Disputed Areas": State Practice concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention, The International journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2006, vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 461-487.
13. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/629/28/PDF/N0262928. pdfrOpenElement (last visited. 5 October 2007).
14. P.R.R. Gardiner, "The Limits of the Sea Beyond National Jurisdiction-Some Problems with Particular Reference to the Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf", in G. Blake (ed.), Maritime Boundaries and Ocean Resources (London & Sydney: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 69.
15. On 27 November 2006 Norway submitted to the CLCS data for three separate areas in the North East Altantic and the Arctic: the Loop Hole in the Barents Sea; the Western Nansen Basin in the Arctic Ocean; and the Banana Hole in the Norwegian Sea. Norway highlighted diat the submission in question only dealt with the outer limits of the continental shelf in those areas and that a further submission might be made in respect of other areas, see http://www.un.org/ Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_nor.htm (last visited 3 October 2007).
16. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-2.html (last visited 3 October 2007).
17. Under article 4 of annex II to the Convention, a coastal State intending to establish the outer limits to its continental margin is obligated to submit the scientific and technical data to the CLCS within 10 years of the entry into force of the Convention for that State. Canada and Denmark have ratified the Convention on 7 November 2003 and 16 November 2004 respectively.
18. R.W. Smith and G. Taft, supra note 7, p. 19.
19. Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the CLCS, see point 5.1.3.
20. Ibid.
21. P.A. Symonds, et al., "Characteristics of Continental Margins", in Cook and Carleton, eds., Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (New York, Oxford University Press 2000), p. 30.
22. See point 5.1.2 of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the CLCS adopted by the CLCS on 13 May 1999, CLCS/11.
23. The relevant part of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention refers "(a) to 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 the limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas, and [. . . ]".
24. ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands) (hereafter North Sea), ICJ Reports 1969, p, 51, para 96.
25. D.A. Colson, "Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf Between States widi Opposite or Adjacent Coasts", in Nordquist, et al., eds., Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004), p. 291.
26. D.A. Colson, "The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf Between Neighboring States", 97 AJIL (2003), p. 107.
27. The validity of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the CLCS with Article 76 of the UNC-LOS depends on the conformity with Article 76 of the UNCLOS. The CLCS is not vested powers to pronounce authoritative interpretations of inter alia Article 76 of the UNCLOS as this prerogative is in international law only conferred to bodies that are vested power of jus dare. Consequently it can be held that CLCS cannot impose its interpretation of Article 76 on submitting States. The work of the CLCS can accordingly be characterised to somewhat of a technical homologation. See N. M. Antunes, Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation: Legal and Technical Aspects of a Political Process, (Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2003), p. 328.
28. ICJ, Gulf of Maine, para 111.
29. P. Weil, The Law of Maritime Delimitations-Reflections (Grotius Publications 1989), p. 53.
30. Judge Guillaume, speech to the Sixth Committee of the General Assemby of the United Nations, 31 October 2001, available at www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ ipresscom/iprstats.htm (last visited 2 October 2007). (emphasis added)
31. North Sea, p. 48, para 88;
32. Tunisia v. Libya, p. 60, para 71.
33. ICJ, Guinea v. Guinea Bissau, 77 ILR (1988), p. 656, para. 120.
34. L. Lucchini and M. Voelckel, Droit de la mer, tome 2: Délimitation (Paris, Pedone 1996), p. 211.
35. Tunisia v. Libya, p. 48, para 47.
36. Libya v. Malta, pp. 46-47, para 61.
37. North Sea, p. 31, para 46.
38. D.A. Colson, supra note 26, p. 107.
39. North Sea, p. 31, para 47.
40. North Sea, p. 47, para 85(c).
41. ICJ, Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greecev. Turkey), Judgment of 19 December 1978, ICJ Reports (1978), p. 36, para 84.
42. Libya v. Malta, p. 46-47, para 61.
43. Weil, Dissenting Opinion Canada v. France arbitration, 31(5) ILM (1992) 1198, paras 10-12.
44. P. Weil, supra, note 29, p. 202.
45. Article 83(1) of the Convention reads as follows: "The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution."
46. Libya v. Malta, p. 37, para 43.
47. Ibid, p. 36, para 40.
48. There are substantive differences to consider between title to territory and title to the outer continental margin. It should be highlighted that (i) it is the sovereign title over a. land territory that generates the title to the outer continental margin and that (ii) the extent of the entitlement might be opposed by an equally valid entitlement of another State, see N.M. Antunes, Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation: Legal and Technical Aspects of a Political Process, Leiden/Boston, 2003, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 134.
49. Article 77(3) of the UNCLOS reads as follows: "The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation."
50. See point 6.3.11 of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines.
51. Extract of Article 76 (4)(b) of the UNCLOS.
52. See P.A. Symonds et al., supra note 21, p. 38.
53. Reference can inter alia be done to historical consolidation, discovery and occupation, conquest and subjuguation, cession and prescription, see R. Y. Jennings, A. Watts, (eds.), Oppenheims International Law, 9th Edition, London and New York, Logman, 1997, pp. 677-716.
54. ICJ, Frontier Dispute, Burkina Faso v. Mali, ICJ Reports (1986), p. 578, para 47.
55. Point 5.1.1 of the Scientific and Technical Guidelines.
56. Extract of Article 76(3) of the UNCLOS. (emphasis added)
57. ICJ, Minquiers adn Ecrehos case, ICJ Reports (1953), p. 52.
58. Island of Palmas case, 1928, Reports of International Arbitration Awards, vol II, p. 838.
59. P. Weil, Ecrits de droit international (Paris Presses Universitaires de France, 2000), p. 265.