On the Law of the Sea
Troubles in the Arctic need to be resolved
Britain Plans To Annex South Atlantic Ocean FloorTroubles in the Arctic need to be resolved
2007-09-22 02:07:45
(http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid 668)
The new British Empire? U.K. hopes to annex lucrative gas, mineral and oil fields.
Britain is preparing territorial claims on tens of thousands of square
miles of the Atlantic Ocean floor around the Falklands, Ascension
Island and Rockall in the hope of annexing potentially lucrative gas,
mineral and oil fields, the Guardian newspaper has learned.
The U.K. claims, to
be lodged at the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf (UNCLCS),exploit a novel legal approach that is transforming the international
politics of underwater prospecting.
Britain is accelerating its
process of submitting applications to the U.N. - which is fraught with
diplomatic sensitivities, not least with Argentina - before an
international deadline for registering interests.
Relying on detailed geological and
geophysical surveys by scientists and hydrographers, any state can
delineate a new "continental shelf outer limit" that can extend
350 miles from its shoreline. Data has been collected for most of
Britain's submissions and Chris Carleton, head of the law of the sea
division at the U.K. Hydrographic Office and an international expert on
the process, said preliminary talks on Rockall are being held in
Reykjavik, Iceland, next week.
Read the full story here:
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid 668
Earthtimes.orgWhat the Russian papers say
RIA Novosti, Russia -
Anatoly Kolodkin, a judge at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) said there were no deadlines for Russia to file its application. ...
September 17, 2007
Hearings Set for Law of the Sea
Unilateralists are getting ready to squirm. The date for the first hearing on the Law of the Sea convention has been set for September 27, when government witnesses will testify. In October, treaty opponents and business representatives (all supporters) will testify in a second hearing.
As I've written before, everyone with an interest in the use and navigation of the oceans -- the military, environmental organizations, and all ocean industries -- strongly favor U.S. accession to the treaty. That means the point in question with Law of the Sea is whether recognizing, strengthening, and adhering to international law can ever be advantageous to the United States. For those of us who believe that it is usually so -- and according to polls, we represent about 2/3 of all Americans -- this fight will take on special significance.
The small, far-right opposition faces an uphill battle to block ratification, but then again, these battles can be unpredictable. These same folks were ramped up ten years ago against a treaty with similar momentum and importance (the Convention on Biological Diversity) and won. And deck was similarly stacked against the good guys who opposed John Bolton's nomination, yet twice we prevailed.
Stay tuned.
-- Scott Paul
Note:For some interesting reading today, be sure to check out Sebastian Mallaby's very good piece in the Post on energy policy.
The Race for the Arctic (With Oil for the Winner)
by Roselyn Hallett
The race for the Northwest Passage is on again, and this time dog sleds have been replaced by submarines, and stake-a-claim flags have been re-fashioned in titanium. Russia, Canada, Denmark (which controls Greenland), Norway, and the U.S. are all entitled to vie for some of the over 2 million square kilometers of territory in the Arctic, where geologists speculate that up to a quarter of the world's undiscovered gas and oil reserves may be locked beneath the surface.
Most of the Arctic is currently classified as an "international" body, but laws exist that allow countries bordering the Arctic to claim sovereignty in the area. The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNLOSC) grants countries economic rights to the ocean and seabed within 200 miles of their coasts. However, countries may expand their territorial claims if they can prove that underwater continental shelf beyond their 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a "natural prolongation of [the country's] land territory" with similar geological features. Russia has been actively pursuing territory through this clause.
In 2001, the nation submitted geological evidence to support its claims to 1.2 million square kilometers of land in the Arctic, an area called the "Lomonosov Ridge" that covers almost half of the Arctic Ocean's floor. The U.N. international committee declared the data inadequate, and rejected Russia's claim. Russia has not abandoned its efforts. Encouraged by President Vladimir Putin, geologists and politicians in Russia have continued to fight for the Arctic. Their persistence was highlighted in the past month when a highly publicized submarine mission successfully reached the sea floor by breaking through thick ice and descending over two miles underwater. T
he purpose of the expedition, whose members included parliamentarian and polar explorer Artur N. Chilingarov, was to gather geological information about the continental shelf. The group also planted a titanium Russian flag on the sea floor at the North Pole, which the New York Times recognized as a "symbolic move to enhance the government's disputed claim." The move did not go over well with other countries invested in the area. Canada's foreign minister Peter MacKay said on Canadian television, "This isn't the 15th century. You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say, 'We're claiming this territory.'" Canada may not be planting any titanium flags, but their political gestures remain as bold as Russia's.
Like Russia, Canada can make geologic claims on a vast region of continental shelf. Military officers completed "their largest-ever Arctic circle exercise" in mid-August, which was openly declared as one "aimed at asserting sovereignty." Furthermore, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada will construct an expansive port and military training center outside of Canada's Exclusive Economic Zone, in international waters. While analysts have doubted whether Canada would go to war with Russia over Arctic land, Canada's current posture proves their intense interest in gaining control of the resources and territory adjacent to its EEZ.
The United States is in a weak position to negotiate. Having never ratified the UNLOSC, the U.S. does not have voting power on the committee which evaluates claims to the Arctic made by other nations. Republicans plan to press for ratification in the next session of Congress, which would allow the U.S. to make a claim on the continental shelf associated with Alaska. U.S. Coast Guard mapping missions are in progress.
Meanwhile, Denmark is pursuing a study on the far end of the Lomonosov Ridge in search of "proof that [the ridge] is torn from the continental shelf north of Greenland."
Norway is the only nation of the five not yet known to have dispatched survey ships to the north.
The sad irony of the conflict is that global warming-accelerated by the burning of gas and oil-is the reason why the resources locked under ice for millennia are suddenly becoming accessible. Arctic ice is melting rapidly: Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that this year the group saw "the least sea ice we've ever seen in the satellite record . . . and we have another month left to go in the melt season this year."
In fact, the group believes that a complete melt may occur as early as 2030. As the consequences of melting in the Arctic unfold in the forms of rising sea levels, increased global ocean temperatures, and loss of Arctic habitat and species, the ethics of allowing nations to disrupt the environment further-through ice breaking machines and destructive extraction methods-are put into question. The Arctic is in crisis, environmentally and politically, and international attention and legislation is needed to minimize further damage.
Temporarily banning drilling in the region, if and when rights are assigned, seems not too drastic a step, if doing so would improve the chances of survival of endangered species and the Arctic environment itself.
Russia has been increasingly confrontational in past years and seems primed to reassert itself as a major world power. Amidst stories of "Putin youth" and the recent re-activation of strategic, long-range bombers not used since the Soviet collapse, the prospect of Russia gaining control of a huge amount of the world's energy reserves is foreboding. The Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper declared that "the division of the Arctic is the start of a new redistribution of the world."
The U.N. should take heed.
The race for the Northwest Passage is on again, and this time dog sleds have been replaced by submarines, and stake-a-claim flags have been re-fashioned in titanium. Russia, Canada, Denmark (which controls Greenland), Norway, and the U.S. are all entitled to vie for some of the over 2 million square kilometers of territory in the Arctic, where geologists speculate that up to a quarter of the world's undiscovered gas and oil reserves may be locked beneath the surface.
Most of the Arctic is currently classified as an "international" body, but laws exist that allow countries bordering the Arctic to claim sovereignty in the area. The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNLOSC) grants countries economic rights to the ocean and seabed within 200 miles of their coasts. However, countries may expand their territorial claims if they can prove that underwater continental shelf beyond their 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a "natural prolongation of [the country's] land territory" with similar geological features. Russia has been actively pursuing territory through this clause.
In 2001, the nation submitted geological evidence to support its claims to 1.2 million square kilometers of land in the Arctic, an area called the "Lomonosov Ridge" that covers almost half of the Arctic Ocean's floor. The U.N. international committee declared the data inadequate, and rejected Russia's claim. Russia has not abandoned its efforts. Encouraged by President Vladimir Putin, geologists and politicians in Russia have continued to fight for the Arctic. Their persistence was highlighted in the past month when a highly publicized submarine mission successfully reached the sea floor by breaking through thick ice and descending over two miles underwater. T
he purpose of the expedition, whose members included parliamentarian and polar explorer Artur N. Chilingarov, was to gather geological information about the continental shelf. The group also planted a titanium Russian flag on the sea floor at the North Pole, which the New York Times recognized as a "symbolic move to enhance the government's disputed claim." The move did not go over well with other countries invested in the area. Canada's foreign minister Peter MacKay said on Canadian television, "This isn't the 15th century. You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say, 'We're claiming this territory.'" Canada may not be planting any titanium flags, but their political gestures remain as bold as Russia's.
Like Russia, Canada can make geologic claims on a vast region of continental shelf. Military officers completed "their largest-ever Arctic circle exercise" in mid-August, which was openly declared as one "aimed at asserting sovereignty." Furthermore, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada will construct an expansive port and military training center outside of Canada's Exclusive Economic Zone, in international waters. While analysts have doubted whether Canada would go to war with Russia over Arctic land, Canada's current posture proves their intense interest in gaining control of the resources and territory adjacent to its EEZ.
The United States is in a weak position to negotiate. Having never ratified the UNLOSC, the U.S. does not have voting power on the committee which evaluates claims to the Arctic made by other nations. Republicans plan to press for ratification in the next session of Congress, which would allow the U.S. to make a claim on the continental shelf associated with Alaska. U.S. Coast Guard mapping missions are in progress.
Meanwhile, Denmark is pursuing a study on the far end of the Lomonosov Ridge in search of "proof that [the ridge] is torn from the continental shelf north of Greenland."
Norway is the only nation of the five not yet known to have dispatched survey ships to the north.
The sad irony of the conflict is that global warming-accelerated by the burning of gas and oil-is the reason why the resources locked under ice for millennia are suddenly becoming accessible. Arctic ice is melting rapidly: Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that this year the group saw "the least sea ice we've ever seen in the satellite record . . . and we have another month left to go in the melt season this year."
In fact, the group believes that a complete melt may occur as early as 2030. As the consequences of melting in the Arctic unfold in the forms of rising sea levels, increased global ocean temperatures, and loss of Arctic habitat and species, the ethics of allowing nations to disrupt the environment further-through ice breaking machines and destructive extraction methods-are put into question. The Arctic is in crisis, environmentally and politically, and international attention and legislation is needed to minimize further damage.
Temporarily banning drilling in the region, if and when rights are assigned, seems not too drastic a step, if doing so would improve the chances of survival of endangered species and the Arctic environment itself.
Russia has been increasingly confrontational in past years and seems primed to reassert itself as a major world power. Amidst stories of "Putin youth" and the recent re-activation of strategic, long-range bombers not used since the Soviet collapse, the prospect of Russia gaining control of a huge amount of the world's energy reserves is foreboding. The Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper declared that "the division of the Arctic is the start of a new redistribution of the world."
The U.N. should take heed.
No comments:
Post a Comment