Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:50:20.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing the robustness of Arctic and Antarctic governance through the continental shelf submission process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2012

Melissa Weber
Melissa Weber*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The processes undertaken by Arctic states and Antarctic claimant states to submit data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) demonstrates the robustness of polar governance. The robustness of a governing system reflects its capacity to deal with emerging issues. For the purposes of this article, robustness comprises the effective protection of rights in the absence of prejudice and participant confidence. In the Arctic, unilateral assertion of continental shelf entitlement can proceed due to the nature of the CLCS process and recognition of sovereignty. Combined with the voluntary nature of Arctic governance, the process does not hamper cooperation in scientific research, boundary delimitation or engagement in initiatives such as the Arctic Council. In the Antarctic, a coordinated approach to continental shelf delimitation protected claimant states’ entitlement to a continental shelf and the right of other states not to recognise sovereignty. States demonstrated commitment to the Antarctic Treaty and acted according to accepted norms. Though different in structure, each polar governing system has its own characteristics of robustness. State authority drives participant confidence and regional cooperation in the Arctic. In the Antarctic, norms of behaviour foster system legitimacy and resilience is reinforced by the consequences of abandoning the system. With continued acceptance of the individual governing-system dynamics, emerging issues can be accommodated in both polar regions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 43 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AC (Arctic Council). 1996. Ottawa Declaration. Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council; adopted 19 September 1996. 35 I.L.M. 1382–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AC (Arctic Council). 1996. Permanent participants. URL: http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/permanentparticipants (accessed 7 August 2012).Google Scholar
AC (Arctic Council). 2011. Nuuk Declaration. Seventh ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council, 12 May. Nuuk, Greenland. URL: http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about/documents/category/5-declarations (accessed 7 August 2012).Google Scholar
AC (Arctic Council). 2012. URL: website: http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/partners-links (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Agreement. 1990. Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the maritime boundary (Boundary agreement). 1990. Adopted 1 June. 29 I.L.M. 941; not entered into force.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antarctic Treaty. 1959. Adopted 1 December. 402 U.N.T.S. 71; entered into force 23 June 1961.Google Scholar
Antarctic Treaty. 1972. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals; adopted 1 June 1972. 1080 U.N.T.S. 175; entered into force 11 March 1978.Google Scholar
Antarctic Treaty. 1980. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources; adopted 20 May. 19 I.L.M. 837; entered into force 7 April 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antarctic Treaty. 1991. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty; adopted 4 October. 30 I.L.M. 1455; entered into force 14 January 1998, Annex V entered into force 24 May 2002, Annex VI adopted 14 June 2005 (the Madrid Protocol).Google Scholar
Antarctic Treaty. 1995. Decision 1. Recommendations divided into measures, decisions and resolutions. Seoul, Korea. (ATCM xix, 8–19 May 1995).Google Scholar
Arctic Coastal States. 2008. Ilulissat Declaration. Ilulissat, Greenland (Arctic Ocean Conference), 28 May. URL: http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf (accessed 7 August 2012).Google Scholar
Argentina. 2009. Outer limit of the continental shelf Argentine submission, executive summary, 21 April. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/arg2009e_summary_eng.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Argentine Republic. 2009a. Argentine Republic: diplomatic note N.U. 139/2009/600, 21 April 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/arg_nota_2009esp.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Argentine Republic. 2009b. Argentine Republic: diplomatic note no. 290/09/600, 9 August 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr45_09/arg_re_gbr_clcs_2009e.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
BEAC (Barents EuroArctic Council). 2012. The Barents EuroArctic Council official website. URL: http://www.beac.st/in_English/Barents_Euro-Arctic_Council.iw3 (accessed 8 August 2012).Google Scholar
Campbell, B. 2008. Australia's extended continental shelf confirmed. Australian Resource and Energy Law Journal 27 (2): 145–146.Google Scholar
Canada. 2002. Canada: notification regarding the submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 26 February 2002. United Nations: Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01/CLCS_01_2001_LOS__CANtext.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Cannon, L. 2010. Chairman's summary of the Arctic Ocean: foreign ministers’ meeting of 29 April 2010. Chelsea, Canada. URL: http://www.international.gc.ca/polar-polaire/arctic-meeting_reunion-arctique-2010_summary_sommaire.aspx?lang=eng (accessed 30 March 2010).Google Scholar
CLCS (Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf). 2002. Statement by the chairman of the CLCS on the progress of work in the commission, 1 July. CLCS/34. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/452/91/PDF/N0245291.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 28 September 2012).Google Scholar
Corell, H. 2009. The Arctic: an opportunity to cooperate and demonstrate statesmanship. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42 (4): 1065–1079.Google Scholar
Denmark. 2002. Kingdom of Denmark: notification regarding the submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 26 February 2002. United Nations: Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Denmark to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/rus01/CLCS_01_2001_LOS__DNKtext.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Denmark. 2012. Kingdom of Denmark (together with the Government of Greenland). Partial submission to the CLCS: the southern continental shelf of Greenland, executive summary, 14 June 2012. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_dnk_61_2012.htm (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
DOALOS (Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea). 2012. Commission on the limits of the continental shelf homepage. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Fabra, A., and Gascon, V.. 2008. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the ecosystem approach. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 23 (3): 567–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, S. 2007. Prime minister announces expansion of Canadian Forces facilities and operations in the Arctic, 10 August 2007. URL: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1784 (accessed 8 May 2009).Google Scholar
Hemmings, A., and Stephens, T.. 2010. The extended continental shelves of sub-Antarctic islands: implications for Antarctic governance. Polar Record 46 (239): 312–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrikson, T., and Ulfstein, G.. 2011. Maritime delimitation in the Arctic: the Barents Sea Treaty. Ocean Development and International Law 42 (1): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertell, H.H. 2008. Arctic melt: the tipping point for an Arctic treaty. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 21: 565–590Google Scholar
ICJ (International Court of Justice). 1969. North Sea continental shelf, judgement, (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark and Federal Republic of Germany v. The Netherlands) [1969]. ICJ Report 3, paragraphs 18–20.Google Scholar
India. 2009. India: diplomatic note no. NY/PM/443/1/2009, 31 August 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/ind_re_arg_2009.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
International Law Association. 2006. Second report of the Committee on the Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf. Conclusion 16. Toronto: International Law Association (Toronto Conference). URL: http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/33 (accessed 28 September 2012).Google Scholar
Jackson, R.H., Dahl-Jensen, T., and Working Group, the LORITA. 2010. Sedimentary and crystal structure from the Ellesmere and Greenland continental shelves onto the Lomonsov Ridge, Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Journal International 182 (11): 11–35.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, M. 2007. The Antarctic Treaty System: legal and environmental issues – future challenges for the Antarctic Treaty System. In: Triggs, G., and Riddell, A. (editors). Antarctica: legal and environmental challenges for the future. Cambridge: British Institute of International and Comparative Law: 1–16.Google Scholar
Japan. 2009. Japan: diplomatic note no. SC/09/390, 19 November 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/jpn_re_arg_2009.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Jares, V. 2009. Continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles: the work of the commission on the limits of the continental shelf and the Arctic. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42 (4): 1265–1306.Google Scholar
Joyner, C.C. 2008. Challenges to the Antarctic Treaty: looking back to see ahead. New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 6: 25–62.Google Scholar
Kaye, S., and Rothwell, D.. 2002. Southern ocean boundaries and maritime claims: another Antarctic challenge for the Law of the Sea. Ocean Development and International Law 33 (3–4): 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, N. 2006. Provisional measures and provisional arrangements in maritime boundary disputes. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 21 (4): 423–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivurova, T. 2008. Alternatives for an Arctic Treaty: evaluation and a new proposal. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (RECEIL) 17 (1): 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivurova, T. 2010. Limits and possibilities of the Arctic Council in a rapidly changing scene of Arctic governance. Polar Record 46 (234): 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivurova, T., and VanderZwaag, D.. 2007. The Arctic Council at ten years: retrospect and prospects. University of British Columbia Law Review 40 (1): 121–194.Google Scholar
Koivurova, T., and Molenaar, E.J.. 2009. International governance and regulation of the marine Arctic: Oslo: WWF Arctic International Programme: 1–118. URL: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/what_we_do/marine/reforming_arctic_marine_governance (accessed 10 August 2010).Google Scholar
LOSC (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC); adopted 10 December 1982. 1833 U.N.T.S. 396; entered into force 16 November 1994.Google Scholar
MacDougall, R., Sanford, W., and Verhoef, J.. 2008. Ice and no ice: the Canadian UNCLOS bathymetric mapping program. (Paper presented at the Canadian Hydrographic Conference and National Surveyors Conference, Victoria, British Columbia, May) (available from authors).Google Scholar
MacNab, R., and Parson, L.. 2006. Continental shelf submissions: the record to date. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 21 (3): 309–322.Google Scholar
Mayer, L., Jakobsson, M., and Hall, J.. 2005. Challenges of collecting Law of the Sea data in the Arctic. In: Nordquist, M.H., Moore, J.N., and Skaridov, A.S. (editors). International energy policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea. Boston and Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDorman, T.L. 2002. The role of the commission on the limits of the continental shelf: a technical body in a political world. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 17 (3): 301–324.Google Scholar
Netherlands. 2009. Kingdom of The Netherlands: diplomatic note no. NYV/2009/2459, 30 September 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of The Kingdom of The Netherlands to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/nld_re_arg_2009.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Northern Forum, The. 2012. The Northern Forum official website. URL: http://www.northernforum.org (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Offerdal, K. 2011. The EU in the Arctic: in pursuit of legitimacy and influence. International Journal 66 (4): 861–877.Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, A.G., and Johnson, C.. 2006. Outer limits of the continental shelf and ‘disputed areas’: state practice concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 21 (4): 461–487.Google Scholar
Rayfuse, R. 2008. Protection of marine biodiversity in polar areas beyond national jurisdiction. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 17 (1): 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, D.R. 2008. Issues and strategies for outer continental shelf claims. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 23 (2): 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, D.R. 2012. The Antarctic Treaty as a security construct. In: Hemmings, A.D., Rothwell, D.R., and Scott, K.N. (editors). Antarctic security in the twenty-first century: legal and policy perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge: 33–50.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D.R., and Nasu, H.. 2008. Antarctica and international security and discourse: a primer. New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 6: 3–23.Google Scholar
Roxon, N., Carr, B., Fergusen, M.. 2012. Historic continental shelf proclamation. Attorney-General for Australia, media release of 25 May 2012. URL: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Media-releases/Pages/2012/Second%20Quarter/25-May-2012—Historic-continental-shelf-proclamation.aspx (accessed 28 May 2012).Google Scholar
Russian Federation. 2001. Executive summary of the submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 20 December 2001. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_rus.htm (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Russian Federation. 2009. Russian Federation: note verbale no. 2282/N, 24 August 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/rus_re_arg_2009e.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Serdy, A. 2009. Some views are more equal than others: submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the strange loss of confidence in Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. Australian Yearbook of International Law 28: 181–195.Google Scholar
Sky News. 2009. Hands off! UK claims on Antarctica rejected. Sky News HD Online, 7 March 2009. URL: http://news.sky.com/story/675826/hands-off-uk-claims-on-antarctica-rejected (accessed 7 August 2012).Google Scholar
Triggs, G. 1986. International law and Australian sovereignty in Antarctica. Sydney: Legal Books Pty.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. 2009a. United Kingdom: diplomatic note 84/09, 6 August 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/clcs_45_2009_los_gbr.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
United Kingdom. 2009b. Submission to the CLCS pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in respect of the Falkland Islands, and of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, 11 May 2009. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_gbr_45_2009.htm (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
United Nations. 2001. Decision of the States Parties to the Law of the Sea regarding the date of commencement for making submissions to the commission on the limits of the continental shelf set out in Article 4 of Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 29 May 2001. SPLOS/72. URL: <URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/387/64/PDF/N0138764.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 27 September 2012).Google Scholar
United Nations. 2002a. Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the fifty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly under the agenda items oceans and the Law of the Sea, 2 June 2002. A/57/57/Add.1 of 8 October 2002.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2002b. Statement made by the Deputy Minister for Natural Resources of the Russian Federation during presentation of the submission made by the Russian Federation to the commission, made on 28 March 2002, 2 April 2002. CLCS/31. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/318/60/PDF/N0231860.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
United Nations. 2008a. Decision of the States Parties to the Law of the Sea regarding the workload of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 24 June 2008. SPLOS/183. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/398/76/PDF/N0839876.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 27 September 2012).Google Scholar
United Nations. 2008b. Revised rules and procedures of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 17 April 2008. CLCS/40 Rev. 1. URL: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/309/23/PDF/N0830923.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 27 September 2012).Google Scholar
United States. 2009. United States of America: diplomatic note, 19 August 2009. United Nations: Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/usa_re_arg_2009.pdf (accessed 12 August 2012).Google Scholar
Weber, M. 2008. Australia's extended continental shelf submission: states’ rights in the context of Antarctic regional governance. Antarctic and Southern Ocean Law and Policy Occasional Papers 1: 1–32.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 2009. Defining the outer limits of the continental shelf in the Arctic: the Russian submission, states’ rights, boundary delimitation and Arctic regional cooperation. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 24 (4): 653–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. 2011. The strength to continue: a case study approach to examining the robustness of polar governance in the era of environmental and energy security. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Hobart, Tasmania: University of Tasmania, Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 2012. Delimitation of the continental shelves in the Antarctic Treaty area: lessons for regime, resource and environmental security. In: Hemmings, A.D., Rothwell, D.R., and Scott, K.N. (editors). Antarctic security in the twenty-first century: legal and policy perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge: 172–196.Google Scholar
Yeagar, B., and Huebert, R.. 2008. A new sea: the need for a regional agreement on management and conservation of the Arctic marine environment. Oslo: WWF International Arctic Programme: 6–17.Google Scholar
Young, O.R. 2005. Governing the Arctic: from cold war theater to mosaic of cooperation. Global Governance 11 (1): 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar