The North Pole Seabed Nature Reserve as a Provisional Arrangement

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-133
Author(s):  
Olya Gayazova

Abstract That the geographic North Pole is the Arctic Schelling point, is implicit in the Russian submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. I assess this premise vis-à-vis three other approaches to the outer continental shelf delimitation in the Arctic Ocean—the median-line method; a joint submission; and an international zone around the North Pole—and show that both the premise and the alternatives have limitations. Then I explain how an agreement between the Arctic Ocean states (the A5) to establish a seabed nature reserve north of 88°20´N and within 100 nm from the 2,500-meter isobath overcomes those limitations and what positive direct and indirect effects may come from it.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 210-227
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

Though legally no more significant than any other point in the Arctic Ocean, into which State’s continental shelf the geographic North Pole will ultimately fall is politically charged for the three States involved – Canada, Denmark (Greenland) and Russia – that have submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf outer limits within which the Pole falls. The 2014 Danish submission, for an area extending beyond the equidistance line with Canada, was in that sense paradoxically helpful to Canada, as Denmark, with the northernmost land territory, is by definition closest to the Pole, which must therefore lie on its side of any such line drawn between itself and any other State; thus Denmark gave cover to Canada which needed to take a similar approach to define its continental shelf entitlement as including the North Pole. Boundaries will eventually have to be delimited, but as it likely to be 20 years before the Commission examines the last of the submissions, the three States have ample pretext to postpone this step until then, a solution likely to suit them all.


1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (73) ◽  
pp. 193-213
Author(s):  
Moira Dunbar

AbstractSLAR imagery of Nares Strait was obtained on three flights carried out in. January, March, and August of 1973 by Canadian Forces Maritime Proving and Evaluation Unit in an Argus aircraft equipped with a Motorola APS-94D SLAR; the March flight also covered two lines in the Arctic Ocean, from Alert 10 the North Pole and from the Pole down the long. 4ºE. meridian to the ice edge at about lat. 80º N. No observations on the ground were possible, but -some back-up was available on all flights from visual observations recorded in the air, and on the March flight from infrared line-scan and vertical photography.The interpretation of ice features from the SLAR imagery is discussed, and the conclusion reached that in spite of certain ambiguities the technique has great potential which will increase with improving resolution, Extent of coverage per distance flown and independence of light and cloud conditions make it unique among airborne sensors.


2010 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 829-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Matzka ◽  
Thorkild M. Rasmussen ◽  
Arne V. Olesen ◽  
Jens Emil Nielsen ◽  
Rene Forsberg ◽  
...  

1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (73) ◽  
pp. 193-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moira Dunbar

Abstract SLAR imagery of Nares Strait was obtained on three flights carried out in. January, March, and August of 1973 by Canadian Forces Maritime Proving and Evaluation Unit in an Argus aircraft equipped with a Motorola APS-94D SLAR; the March flight also covered two lines in the Arctic Ocean, from Alert 10 the North Pole and from the Pole down the long. 4ºE. meridian to the ice edge at about lat. 80º N. No observations on the ground were possible, but -some back-up was available on all flights from visual observations recorded in the air, and on the March flight from infrared line-scan and vertical photography. The interpretation of ice features from the SLAR imagery is discussed, and the conclusion reached that in spite of certain ambiguities the technique has great potential which will increase with improving resolution, Extent of coverage per distance flown and independence of light and cloud conditions make it unique among airborne sensors.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 499-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

Abstract Despite alarmist media reports and rhetoric from some who should know better, there is no cause for concern about Russian activities on the Arctic seabed. While the melting Arctic Ocean ice cover will have profound consequences for navigation, there is no reason for the resources regime of the continental shelf (including the part beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines) to be affected, and whatever happens on the seabed will have no effect on sovereignty over the land. The gimmickry of the flag-planting aside, most of the criticism of Russian activities incorrectly assumes they depart from the established international legal framework. In fact they are a good example of compliance with the framework that will have the beneficial effect of contributing to legal certainty about jurisdictional boundaries. Under the rules in Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for establishing the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, Russia and other coastal States are not making “claims” but merely technical submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on where the outer limits of their shelves run. The geological circumstances of the Lomonossov Ridge traversing the North Pole may well support the enclosure of at least part of it within Russia’s continental shelf, and possibly the same would apply to a submission by Denmark from the other (Greenland) end of the Ridge, which it has until 2014 to make. In practice, the distance of the central Arctic Ocean from markets, extreme conditions and high extraction costs make hydrocarbon exploitation there unlikely even at the high oil prices of mid-2008.


2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (10) ◽  
pp. 1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Kenison Falkner ◽  
Michael Steele ◽  
Rebecca A. Woodgate ◽  
James H. Swift ◽  
Knut Aagaard ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
pp. 410-418
Author(s):  
Rosemary Rayfuse

Russia’s planting of a flag on the seabed at the North Pole in 2007 set off a flurry of concern about its maritime and territorial ambitions and the potential for international conflict in the Arctic. However, the law of the sea now renders moot traditional rules of the doctrine of discovery and occupation as manifestations of sovereignty. Thus, the Russian flag at the North Pole is meaningless in the legal sense. Nevertheless, it is not irrelevant. On the one hand, it has catalyzed the development of a ‘law habit’ among the Arctic states now reflected in cooperation on scientific and technical work to support their overlapping outer continental-shelf claims to the Arctic seabed and on other Arctic Ocean matters. On the other hand, it has clearly signalled a claim to an advantageous negotiating position. The flag is thus a physical manifestation of both the power and pretence of international law.


Polar Record ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 26 (158) ◽  
pp. 225-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall J. Osczevski

AbstractThe data used by Dr Frederick A. Cook in support of his claim to have reached the North Pole on 21 April 1908 are reinterpreted to support a hypothesis that Cook did not reach the Pole, that his journey towards the Pole lasted only one week, and thathe subsequently discovered and visited Meighen Island. This reconstruction explains how Dr Cook could have made observations of ice conditions and drift, and of an ice island, without having travelled far out on the Arctic Ocean. A possible reason for his failure to announce discovery of Meighen Island is also offered.


1996 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francois Vuilleumier

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document