Meeting the Deadline: Canada's Arctic Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

Abstract

Seafloor highs can be grouped into three legal categories: (i) oceanic ridges; (ii) submarine ridges; and (iii) submarine elevations. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf recognizes that the foot of slope serves as the qualifier to distinguish oceanic ridges from the two other categories. The Commission established a view that the sole qualifier for a submarine ridge is its morphological continuity with the continental margin. A submarine elevation needs also to share geological characteristics with the rest of the continental margin. Recent recommendations suggest that the Commission may have complicated its view in this respect.     

International Law and Politics in U.S. Policymaking: The United States and the Svalbard Dispute

This article explains the position(s) of the United States in the maritime dispute adjacent to Svalbard. While the United States has regarded Norway's exclusive claim to the natural resources outside Svalbard as everything from “wishful thinking” to legally plausible, Washington maintains that it may have rights under the 1920 Svalbard Treaty to exploit the maritime zones adjacent to the archipelago. The U.S. reservation is the result of assessments and reassessments of legal considerations as well as national interests.     

The Svalbard Continental Shelf Controversy: Legal Disputes and Political Rivalries

Norway's claim to exclusive rights over the continental shelf surrounding the former terra nullius Arctic archipelago of Svalbard is controversial, with the unclear scope of the Svalbard Treaty recognized as “a main challenge” by Norway's parliament. This article explores the nature of this challenge by: (1) giving an account of the legal basis of the conflict; (2) analyzing its political context, and (3) discussing the contemporary judicial and political processes which may or may not resolve the conflict. This article concludes that the issue seems to escape judicial settlement, rendering the controversy a matter of international politics. With the world's eyes increasingly on the petroleum resources of the Arctic, a clarification over the legal status of the Svalbard shelf is not in sight.     

Crossed Lines: The Curious Case of the Beaufort Sea Maritime Boundary Dispute

The Beaufort Sea maritime boundary dispute has traditionally been understood as involving a wedge-shaped area of maritime space that extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles north of the terminus of the Canada-United States border between the Yukon Territory and Alaska. However, new data collected in pursuit of establishing the limits of the extended continental shelf in the region show that the two countries’ seabed resource rights may stretch far beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of the exclusive economic zone. Significantly, at approximately 200 nautical miles from shore, the U.S.-claimed equidistance line crosses the line claimed by Canada, which follows the 141° W meridian, meaning that the legal positions of the two countries if simply extended beyond the EEZ would appear to favor the other party. This article explores how the United States and Canada might seek to reformulate their legal positions to resolve the dispute. Though these reformulated positions might not reduce the area in dispute, they will clarify it and potentially enable the parties to either delimit a single maritime boundary or choose to implement one of a number of creative solutions to the dispute that are outlined in the article.     

Managing Adjacency: Some Legal Aspects of the Relationship Between the Extended Continental Shelf and the International Seabed Area

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–1982) struck a difficult compromise between the definition of the outer limits of the extended continental shelf (ECS) in relation to the international seabed area (the Area) and the making of payments and contributions by the coastal state in relation to production activities on its ECS in Article 82. The implementation of Article 82 underscores a broader and more far-reaching relationship between the continental shelf, and the ECS in particular, and the Area. In some regions there may be a relationship between the exclusive economic zone and the Area, where there is no ECS. Effectively, the relationship translates into realities and expectations of good neighborliness. This article examines this relationship and the possible approaches for the management of identified challenges.     

An Analysis of the Aegean Disputes under International Law

Greece and Turkey have been unable to resolve interrelated disputes in the Aegean Sea involving the breadth of the territorial sea, the delimitation of the continental shelf, the demilitarization of certain islands, and the passage rights of ships and planes. This article examines the historical background of these disputes and offers recommendations for possible solutions.