National Maritime Claims in the Arctic - The University of ... · Office of Ocean and Polar ......
39
National Maritime Claims in the Arctic Changes in the Arctic Environment and the Law of the Sea The 33rd COLP Conference Seward, Alaska May 21, 2009 Brian Van Pay Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs U.S. Department of State
Transcript of National Maritime Claims in the Arctic - The University of ... · Office of Ocean and Polar ......
National Maritime Claims in the Arctic
Changes in the Arctic Environmentand the Law of the SeaThe 33rd COLP Conference Seward, Alaska May 21, 2009
Brian Van PayOffice of Ocean and Polar Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Presenter
Presentation Notes
I would like to thank the Center for Ocean Law and Policy for inviting me to speak here today. I appreciate the opportunity. I have been asked to address national maritime claims in the Arctic and, as such, I would like to walk through a few slides that highlight each of the areas of agreement and dispute in the Arctic Ocean.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The issue of how States define their sovereignty and sovereign rights in the ocean has received much more attention in the past two years, and much of that attention has focused on the Arctic Ocean. This presentation will show that countries are, however, proceeding down a reasonably orderly path based on the rules specified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. I think you will also find the issues are a bit more complex than often characterized.
Where is the Arctic?
Where is the Arctic Ocean?
Neither has a definitive and obvious extent. The United States has an interest in not subscribing to one particular definition for all purposes. Rather each definition serves its own purpose.
Land and water above the Arctic Circle?
Include the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands?
All of Greenland and the Faroe Islands?
Bioregions (treeline, where permafrost begins, isotherm, etc)?
Definition adopted by IHO in 1953?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
As a preliminary matter, it is important to be aware of the differences in the geographic definitions for the term “Arctic.” One of the most common definitions is all land and water north of Arctic Circle, but there are a variety of other definitions that better suit individual countries or science. In regard to the Arctic Ocean, there is a definition adopted by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) in 1953. As a member of the IHO, the U.S. agrees with this definition in the context of providing uniformity to mariners for navigational purposes. But neither the Arctic or the Arctic Ocean has a definitive and obvious extent. The U.S. has an interest in not subscribing to one particular definition of either for all purposes. Rather, each definition serves its own purpose.
Arctic Geography 101
Smallest of the world’s oceans• ~3% of the world’s ocean by area • ~1% by volume
The geologic and legal continental shelf occupies a much higher proportion of the Arctic Ocean than any other ocean
5 States abut the Arctic Ocean: • Canada• Denmark• Norway, • Russia• United States
3 more States with land above Arctic Circle• Iceland• Sweden• Finland
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Arctic Ocean is the smallest of the world’s five oceans both in its perimeter and volume of water. Its geologic and legal continental shelves occupy a much higher proportion of its area compared to the other four oceans. The Arctic Ocean is unique in many ways. It was the first region with a maritime boundary treaty that applied to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, it was the first region that used a computer program to draw a maritime boundary rather than plot the coordinates by hand, and, unlike many areas, there are no land sovereignty disputes with one small exception. Some have pointed to the limited maritime boundaries in the Arctic Ocean as a potential flashpoint. In truth, there are 430 international maritime boundaries across the globe, and fewer than half of these are agreed or even partially agreed. Moreover, maritime boundary negotiations are usually prompted by a need, such as fishing or petroleum. Arctic countries have largely not seen a need to define their maritime boundaries in the Arctic or have worked out other cooperative mechanisms. In the interest of time and my definition of the Arctic, I will focus on the five States that abut the Arctic Ocean.
Maritime Zones/Limits
Maritime Boundaries
Presenter
Presentation Notes
There are two separate but linked processes that are necessary to delimit a line in the water. The first is for a State to declare or define a maritime zone or limit based on international law. I will primarily refer to three maritime zones: territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf. You will also hear the term extended continental shelf or ECS. ECS is a term of convenience that describes that portion of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles; you will not find this term in the Convention. Once a State declares or defines a maritime zone, it may then negotiate a maritime or continental shelf boundary where these zones overlap with adjacent or opposite States.
Each of the five States bordering the Arctic Ocean have claimed an EEZ
Outer limit cannot exceed 200 nautical miles
Sovereign rights over all living and non-living resources in the water column, seabed, and subsoil
The limits of the EEZ are ambulatory
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Within its EEZ, a State has sovereign rights over all living and non-living resources. Each of the five Arctic States have claimed an EEZ. The blue denotes the EEZ, while the grey area in the center is high seas and thus either extended continental shelf or the deep seabed.
Continental ShelfUnder international law, every coastal State is entitled to a 200-mile shelf automatically
Some coastal States can define a continental shelf beyond 200 miles if the shelf meets the criteria under Article 76
Coastal State has sovereign rights over the natural resources of the shelf
The CLCS makes recommendations; CLCS cannot address maritime boundaries
The EEZ is ambulatory, whereas the continental shelf is “final and binding”
All 5 Arctic States have an ECS
All 5 have collected data beyond 350 nautical miles
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Like the EEZ, the continental shelf automatically extends out to 200 nautical miles. If a State, however, meets the criteria under Article 76, it may define a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Unlike the EEZ, a State does not have sovereign rights over the resources of the water column, namely the pelagic fisheries. It does, however, have sovereign rights over the mineral and petroleum resources, as well as “sedentary” creatures on and below the seabed. Article 76 provides for two formula lines—one is based entirely on the morphology of the seafloor, while the other is based on a combination of the morphology and the thickness of the sediments. A State can use any combination of either formula to maximize its continental shelf. But in addition to the two formula lines there are two constraint lines that “cut-off” those formula lines. One is simply 350 nautical miles from the shore. The other requires finding the 2,500 meter bathymetric contour and adding 100 nautical miles. Again, a State can use any combination of both constraint lines to maximize its continental shelf. So the line that ultimately defines a continental shelf can be a combination of five factors—the two formula lines and the two constraint lines that cut-off those formula lines, and the 200 nautical continental shelf. When a State has defined its continental shelf, it presents its coordinates and technical and scientific data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). This body, composed of 21 scientists, was set up under the Convention makes recommendations back to the coastal State. It is up to the State to define its continental shelf, but if it does so “on the basis” of the recommendations of the Commission, those limits then become “final and binding.” 50 separate submissions from have been made to the CLCS, while 41 States have submitted preliminary information and most of those have been made in the past couple weeks. Annex II, Article 9 of the Convention stipulates, “The actions of the Commission shall not prejudice matters relating to delimitation of boundaries between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.” In other words, the Commission may not examine a submission where there is a dispute. There are a couple ways that States have addressed this: 1) define a maritime boundary (by my count more than 12 treaties have arisen due largely to ECS efforts), 2) make a joint submission to the Commission (there are five of those), or 3) issue a note verbale to the Commission that they may make recommendations on the ECS area in question provided it doesn’t prejudice a future boundary delimitation (there are more than a dozen such notes). If none of these approaches are taken, then the Commission may not examine the submission. The map I have included here was produced by the International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) and it depicts maritime zones in the Arctic. It simplifies the situation and the U.S. do not entirely agree with some of its depictions and labeling, such as straight baselines and internal waters.
Russian Effort
Russian submission made December 2001
4 areas total, 2 in the Arctic
Received supportive recommendations for 2 of the 4 areas. Commission required additional data for the Arctic
Applies 1990 maritime boundary. Russia does not claim anything U.S. could
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Russia was the first to make a submission to the Commission in December 2001. That submission was for four separate areas, two of which are in the Arctic as shown by the red hatched areas, namely the central Arctic and the Barents Sea Loop Hole. The Russian submission did not include the Gakkel Ridge, because it is an oceanic ridge per paragraph 3 which says the continental shelf “does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof.” Canada and Denmark both issued note verbales to the Commission. Neither specifically objected to the submission despite the lack of maritime boundaries, but they said that any recommendations by the Commission shall not prejudice future maritime boundary negotiations. The Commission issued recommendations at its June 2002 meeting and largely agreed with Russia’s delimitation for two of the four areas. In regard to the central Arctic Ocean, the Commission recommended Russia make a revised submission that includes additional data. Russia is working on this now. It also recommended that Russia make a partial submission for the northern portion of the Sea of Okhotsk given its sovereignty dispute with Japan over the Kuril Islands.
Norwegian Effort
Submitted Nov 2006
Recommendations received March 2009
Publically accepted recommendations
There is no agreed boundary between Norway and Russia in the Loop Hole
Gakkel Ridge blocks Norway from a larger ECS in the Arctic Ocean Banana Hole
Loop Hole
Western Nansen Basin
NORWAY
Russian ECS Limit
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Norway has proceeded the farthest of any Arctic country to define its ECS. They made a submission in 2006 that covers three areas—the banana hole, the loop hole, and a small area north of Svalbard. Like Russia, the Gakkel Ridge blocks Norway from defining an ECS beyond a relatively small sliver in the Arctic Ocean just north of Svalbard. The CLCS issued recommendations in March of this year. Norway, like the eight other countries that have received recommendations to date, have yet to officially define their ECS based on those recommendations thus making their limits final and binding. Even so, Norway has publically accepted those recommendations.
ECS off East Coast and in the central/western portion of Arctic
Submission due by 2013
Cooperative effort with Denmark on the Lomonosov Ridge
Cooperative effort with the U.S. in the Canada Basin and on Chukchi Borderland
~1.75 million square kilometers, an area about the size of the Prairie provinces
Canadian Effort
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Canada has ECS off their East Coast, possibly off their West Coast, and in the central and western portions of the Arctic Ocean. The red hatched area on this slide depicts its potential ECS in the Arctic. Canada has two separate cooperative data collection efforts, one with Denmark (since 2005) on the Lomonosov Ridge and another with the U.S. (since 2008) in the Canada Basin and on the Chukchi Borderland. On Monday, Canada announced it had made significant progress in its recent work in the far north to collect bathymetry by autonomous underwater vehicles operating under the ice, as well as collecting sonar readings by helicopter, and aerogravity measurements by airplane. The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy and Canada’s Louis St. Laurent will begin it’s 42-day mission on Aug 7. Based on what they have posted on their website, Canada’s ECS appears to extend to the North pole. It also crosses the U.S.-Russia maritime boundary. At least 25% of Canada’s ECS in the Arctic overlaps with the U.S. ECS.
ECS for five areas: three areas off Greenland and two areas off the Faroe Islands
Submission due by 2014
Claims North Pole
Danish Effort
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Denmark has ECS in five areas: Two areas off the Faroe Islands and three areas off Greenland. Denmark will claim an ECS that includes the North Pole.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The U.S. too is defining it’s shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Much of the work since 2003 has been conducted by the Joint Hydrographic Center, while the more recent and upcoming work is done in cooperation with Canada. But I am going to leave those details for Dr. Larry Mayer to cover later this morning.
Line of longitude that starts from the terminus of land boundary and intersects with North Pole.
Treaties often used coordinates as a line of allocation to divide land.
Application is varied and not consistent, especially for marine areas. No basis in UNCLOS.
Russia used sector lines in1916 to stake claims to land and islands discovered and yet to be discovered. Canada used sector line to define fisheries zone in 1997.
U.S. does not accept the application of sector lines for defining maritime zones.
Sector LinesWhat are they? Do they matter?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Sector lines or the so-called sector theory is one aspect of maritime boundaries in the Arctic Ocean. They are largely products of how nations have used coordinates in bilateral treaties or declarations to either allocate or lay claim to land. As you might imagine, it is much easier and accurate to reference all land in between a given set of coordinates then it would be to identify each piece of land. Russia, for instance, used sector lines in a 1916 declaration to lay claim to any land (known or yet to be discovered) in between their two sector lines and all the way to the North Pole. Canada has used sector lines on their official maps as depicted here and to define their fisheries zones. Sector lines have no basis in UNCLOS. Even so, they have been used, albeit inconsistently and sometimes inaccurately, for maritime zones. The U.S. does not accept the application of sector lines for defining maritime zones.
Norway – RussiaAgreement: Territorial Sea
Maritime boundary between Norway and Russia in the Varanger Fjord
• Signed: February 1957• Entry into force: April 1957 • Updated: July 2007
First boundary in the Arctic
Less than 30 nautical miles
Disputed EEZ beyond the end point
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The first maritime boundary in the Arctic was negotiated between Russia and Norway in the Barents Sea in 1957. It is less than 30 nautical miles and includes the territorial sea and a portion of their EEZs. There have been negotiations on and off since then to extend this boundary northward, but these discussions have met with limited success. The major issue is whether to apply a median line or a sector line beyond the current end point. Norway favors a median line, while Russia favors a sector line. Subsequent negotiations, however, have resulted in technical clarifications of the coordinates and addressing trans-boundary resources for the existing boundary.
Norway – Russia Dispute: EEZ
Norway claims an equidistance line
Russia claims a sector line
Several disputed polygons created by the two competing claims
Presenter
Presentation Notes
On this slide we are looking at a much larger area of the disputed EEZ between Norway and Russia. At this scale you cannot see the existing maritime boundary in the far south since it is so short. The green line represents the median or equidistant line that Norway would like to see as the maritime boundary. The peach line represents the sector line that Russia wants as the boundary. This peach line deviates around the box defined in the Spitsbergen Treaty. The criss-crossing of these two lines creates two large disputed polygons and several smaller ones. Note the large triangular shaped area of dispute in the far south; we will discuss this more on the next slide.
Norway – Russia Agreement: Grey Zone
Dispute/Agreement: Loop Hole
Loop HoleSupportive recommendations for both Russia’s and Norway’s submission
Russia Note on Norway submission:“…the Russian Federation consents…to an examination by the Commission of the Norwegian Submission with regard to the ‘area under dispute’ in the Barents Sea.”
Norway’s Note on Russia’s submission:“…Norway consents…to an examination by the Commission of the Russian Submission with regard to the ‘area under dispute’ as described above.”
Grey Zone1978 fisheries zone agreement that includes the Loop Hole and part of Norway’s and Russia’s EEZs
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Because this is the Arctic, disputes in the south are naturally more important than disputes in the northern, ice-covered areas. The Barents Sea in this case is an important fishery for both States. To address this dispute in the south, Russia and Norway created the so-called “grey zone” in 1978. It is the grey area on this map. The grey zone is a fisheries agreement that incorporates most of the southern disputed EEZ area that we saw in the previous slide as well as undisputed portions of the Norwegian and Russian EEZ. Within the Grey Zone Norway and Russia have jurisdiction over their own fishing vessels. Moving now from the EEZ to the ECS, we find the disputed “loop hole,” which is depicted by the orange triangular area on this map. Both the Russian and Norwegian submissions included the entire loop hole. Both, however, submitted a note verbale to the Commission asking them to make recommendations for the other State provided it didn’t bias future negotiations. The CLCS has issued supportive recommendations for the entire loop hole for both submissions. Norway and Russia will presumably work out a continental shelf boundary at some point in the future for the loop hole.
Norway secured sovereignty over the islands and rocks, 39 treaty parties are entitled to exercise rights
Central question: Does the grant of sovereignty to Norway in the Spitsbergen Treaty negotiated in 1920 include modern maritime zones?
Norway says it has sovereign rights in the EEZ and on the continental shelf
Norwegian executive summary says Svalbard generates ECS to the north and not mainland Norway
NorwaySvalbard and the Spitsbergen Treaty
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me briefly mention Svalbard and the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1920. Norway has sovereignty over Svalbard and the surrounding islands and rocks as defined by lines of longitude and latitude specified in the Treaty. Other parties to the Treaty, now 39, are also afforded certain rights. The central question is, “Does the grant of sovereignty to Norway in the Spitsbergen Treaty negotiated in 1920 include modern maritime zones?” Norway says it has sovereign rights in the EEZ and on the continental shelf. Also, the Norwegian executive summary says Svalbard generates ECS to the north and not from mainland Norway.
Delimitation of the EEZ and continental shelf between Greenland and Svalbard • Signed: February 2006 • Entry into force: June 2006
Denmark – NorwayAgreement: Maritime Boundary in Greenland Sea
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Denmark and Norway have a maritime boundary agreement signed in February 2006 that divides the sovereign rights of Greenland and Svalbard as shown by the orange line on this map.
Canada – DenmarkAgreement: Continental Shelf Boundary
Delimits continental shelf between Canada and Greenland
• Signed: December 1973• Entry into force: March 1974• Amended March 1994
Unilaterally-defined fishing zones match boundary.
~1,450 nautical miles long. Includes gap for Hans Island.
Includes unitization provision.
No delimitation of the EEZ and ECS north of the end point.
Hans Island
Continental shelf boundary
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The boundary between Canada and Denmark in Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, and Nares Strait is a continental shelf boundary that was signed in 1973. While it is within 400 nautical miles of both coasts, it does not include the EEZ. For most of its length, however, both parties have unilaterally decided to use the boundary to divide their fisheries zones as well, although these waters are not major commercial fishing grounds. There is no delimitation of the EEZ and ECS north of the end point into the Lincoln Sea. The disagreement to extend this line is based on whether to give full effect to Denmark’s Beaumont Island which would move the line at one point some 70 nautical miles to Denmark’s favor. This boundary is also significant, because it was the first one drawn using a computer program rather than plotted by hand. It is also unique because it includes a unitization provision for trans-boundary resources.
DenmarkAugust 13, 2002
CanadaJuly 13, 2005
Canada – Denmark Dispute: Sovereignty of Hans Island
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Hans Island is a half square mile island or about one-seventh the size of New York's Central Park. This uninhabited island is the only sovereignty dispute in the Arctic. Note on the map how Canada and Denmark purposely left a gap in the continental shelf boundary for Hans Island.
Agreement between US & USSR•Signed: June 1990•Advice and consent from Senate: Sept 1991
•Provisionally applied: June 1990
Longest maritime boundary in the world.
Two ECS areas in the Bering Sea.
”…the maritime boundary extends north…into the Arctic Ocean as far as permitted under international law.”
U.S. – RussiaAgreement: Territorial Sea, EEZ, and Continental Shelf
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The longest maritime boundary in the world is between U.S. and Russia. It runs from the Bering Sea north to the Arctic and was successfully negotiated in 1990. While the Senate has given its advice and consent on this treaty and the Russian Duma has yet to ratify it, this boundary is provisionally applied pursuant to an exchange of notes from June 1990. Article 3 contains a novel provision for the transfer of sovereign rights between the parties in four “special areas.” In other words, the line created fragments of EEZ, referred to as special areas, that are beyond 200 nautical miles from one State but within 200 miles of the other. Also, there are two areas in the central Bering Sea beyond 200 nautical miles from either coast. Russia has received supportive recommendations for the ECS on its side of the boundary. The U.S. will claim an ECS for its area, known as the Bering Sea Donut Hole. Finally, this treaty is also unique because it extends “as far as permitted under international law.” On a related note, Russia is not defining any portion of the Arctic continental shelf that the U.S. might.
U.S. Purchase of Alaska, 1867
“…from this point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the Coast, as far as the point of intersection with the 141st degree of West longitude (i.e., Meridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the same meridian line of 141 Degrees shall form in its prolongation as far as the frozen ocean, the limit between the Russian and British Possessions on the Continent of Northwest America.”
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. The treaty from this land sale is what generates the current disagreement between the U.S. and Canada on the location of the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea. The treaty states the boundary extends “as far as the Frozen Ocean.” Canada interprets this to mean the land boundary continues northward along the 141st meridian, whereas the U.S. interprets the treaty to apply only to the land. The U.S. advocates a boundary based on equidistance.
Canadian EEZ Claim(141st Meridian)
U.S. EEZ Claim(Equidistance)
Beaufort Sea
Disputed area within EEZ is more than 6,700 square nautical miles
Likely rich in hydrocarbons
U.S. – Canada Dispute: Beaufort Sea
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This creates a wedge of dispute that within the EEZ is more than 6,700 square nautical miles. The red line depicts Canada’s claim, while the green line depicts the U.S. claim.
Canadian Maritime Zones
Canadian National Website Canadian ECS Website
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Canada’s approach to their maritime zones in the Arctic is a bit confusing. Canada has extended this 141st meridian to the North Pole on their official maps and Canada is gathering data to support an ECS claim that will, presumably, include an area that is—according to Canada—on the U.S. side of the boundary line. The graphic on the right is from Canada’s ECS website and it shows the sector line continuing northward to 200 nautical miles then turning due west to define continental shelf that does not coincide with the sector line.
Straight Baselines
Each of the Arctic countries have drawn straight baselines except for the U.S.
Straight BaselinesStraight Baselines
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The rules on straight baselines are much abused worldwide and the Arctic is not any different. Each of the Arctic countries have drawn straight baselines, except for the United States. Under international law and the appropriate geographic conditions, the U.S. recognizes the right of coastal States to establish straight baselines. This includes: 1) when a coastline is deeply indented and cut into or 2) if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity. Also, straight baselines should not exceed 24 nautical miles. Canada has drawn straight baselines surrounding its “arctic archipelago” and asserts all of the waters inside those straight baselines are Canadian internal waters. The Canadian arctic archipelago does not constitute a fringe of islands or a deeply indented coast, nor does Canada qualify as an archipelagic State under UNCLOS. The U.S. has also protested the straight baselines of Russia and Denmark’s Faroe Islands. Excessive baselines also lead to pushing the ECS farther out. This is less of a concern in the Arctic, however, given excessive baseline claims only play into ECS coordinates where the 350 nautical constraint line is applied.
The “Area” consists of the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of natural jurisdiction (i.e. beyond the outer limits of the continental shelf.)
The Area is administered by the International Seabed Authority.
If Russia, Canada, Denmark, and the U.S. define an ECS beyond 350 nautical miles, there will be two areas likely to remain:
– area beyond both constraint lines in the Canada Basin.
– Gakkel Ridge
Deep Seabed in the Arctic Ocean?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The “Area” with a capital A consists of the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. In other words, beyond the outer limits of the extended continental shelf. If Russia, Canada, Denmark, and the U.S. define an ECS beyond 350 nautical miles, there will be two areas that will likely remain and be defined as Arctic Area: 1) a portion in the Canada basin that appears to be beyond both constraint lines from any State, and 2) the Gakkel Ridge which cannot be claimed under Article 76.
Russian mini sub planted flag in Aug 2007. A technological achievement, but no legal effect.
Any ECS that reaches the North Pole will likely be based on the Lomonosov Ridge and will exceed 350 nautical miles.
Three-way delimitation issue likely among Russia, Canada, & Denmark.
Equidistance-based boundaries favors Denmark over both Russia and Canada.
North Pole has no legal relevance for determining a boundary.
Who has sovereign rights over the seabed of the North Pole?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Russia has claimed a continental shelf that includes the North Pole. Russia’s expedition to plant a flag on the seabed of the North Pole in August 2007, while a technological achievement, has no legal effect. Based on what is posted on their websites, Canada’s exploration work stops at the North Pole, whereas Denmark seeks to go beyond it. Norway’s ECS does not include the North Pole and they have publically said so. Any continental shelf that includes the North Pole will likely be based on the Lomonosov Ridge and any ECS that includes the Pole will go beyond 350 nautical miles and thus must be considered a submarine elevation under Article 76. If the remaining continental shelf boundaries are determined based on equidistance, it would favor Denmark over both Canada and Russia. Finally, the North Pole itself does not necessarily need to serve as a terminating point for maritime claims or any future maritime boundary agreements—it is not a particularly special point in this respect.
Brian Van PayOffice of Ocean and Polar Affairs
U.S. Department of [email protected]
202-647-5123
Questions?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Thank you and I am happy to take any questions you might have.
Backup
Maritime and Continental Shelf BoundariesWhat are the rules?
Maritime boundaries are needed where:• There are overlapping maritime zones of two States with opposing coasts• The coasts of two States are adjacent to each other
Different rules for:• Territorial sea (Article 15)• EEZ and continental shelf (Articles 74 & 83)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Maritime boundaries are required where there is overlap between States with either adjacent or opposite coasts. While it can be technically demanding, a maritime boundary treaty is usually no more than a few pages. It can get more complicated, however, if the States decide to address trans-boundary resources. There are different rules for the territorial sea on the one hand, and the EEZ and the continental shelf on the other. Article 15 of the Convention says that neither State is entitled, failing agreement, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line, that is a line where every point is equidistant from the nearest points from each State’s baselines. There are exceptions for historic title and other special circumstances. Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention requires an “equitable solution” for determining maritime boundaries for the EEZ and continental shelf. While most boundaries are primarily based on equidistance, there is room to consider other variables, such as disproportionate coastal lengths and geographic contexts (e.g. concavity of coasts, outlying islands of little significance, denying current access to fisheries). Some factors have been deemed not relevant such as: population, socio-economic factors, conduct of parties in other negotiations, size of land mass, and lack/abundance of natural resources on land.
Article 76: Paragraph 4Formula Lines: Two Options
Oceanic crustCrystalline continental crust
Foot of the slope
60nm
100 200 300 4000
nautical miles (nm)
EEZ
1% of distance to foot of slope
Paragraph 4:4(a)ii – FOS + 60M4(a)i – FOS & sediment thickness
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Article 76 provides for two formula lines—one is based entirely on the morphology of the seafloor, while the other is based on a combination of the morphology and the thickness of the sediments. A State can use any combination of either formula to maximize its continental shelf.
Article 76: Paragraph 5Constraints to the ECS Limit: Two Options
Oceanic crustCrystalline continental crust
2,500 m isobath
2,500 m isobath + 100 nm
350 nm
100 200 300 4000
nautical miles (nm)
EEZ
Paragraph 5:Max 1: 350 nm from baselines ORMax 2: 2,500 m isobath plus 100 nm
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In addition to the two formula lines there are two constraint lines that “cut-off” those formula lines. One is simply 350 nautical miles from the shore. The other requires finding the 2,500 meter bathymetric contour and adding 100 nautical miles. Again, a State can use any combination of both constraint lines to maximize its continental shelf. So the line that ultimately defines the U.S. extended continental shelf could be a combination of one or all of those four factors—the two formula lines and the two constraint lines.
Canada – Denmark (Greenland) Continental shelf, 1973 treaty
Denmark (Greenland) – Norway (Svalbard and Faroe Islands) EEZ, 1979 treatyEEZ, 1993, ICJ decision
Norway – RussiaTerritorial Sea, 1957 treaty
U.S. – Russia Territorial sea, EEZ, continental shelf, 1990 treaty
Areas of Agreement
Areas of DisputeCanada – Denmark (Greenland)
Sovereignty of Hans IslandEEZ (south of Alert), EEZ and Continental shelf (north of Alert)
Canada – U.S.Territorial Sea, EEZ, and ECS in Beaufort Sea/Arctic Ocean
Denmark (Greenland) – Norway (Svalbard)EEZ
Norway – Russia EEZ and Continental shelf
Lease Blocks (Beaufort Sea) No lease blocks in disputed area with Canada
Blue block are existing leases
