Russia and China in the Arctic: Real or Alleged Disagreements?

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-71
Author(s):  
A. Zagorskii

The article concentrates on two issues articulated by Xu Guangmiao in her article “China's Arctic Interests and Policy: History, Legal Ground and Implementation” published in the same issue of the Journal: Arctic Governance (and particularly the applicability of the "Common Heritage of the Mankind in the Arctic" concept), as well as the concept of the Northern Sea Route “internationalization” based on the navigation freedom principle. Both issues are considered controversial in Russia–China relations. In addressing those issues, the author seeks to separate real and alleged divergences between the two countries. He argues that apparent differences in their particular approaches do not reflect any fundamental divergences and can be transcended if handled pragmatically, with recognition of the sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdictions of coastal states, as well as of the non-Arctic states' rights and responsibilities under the Law of the Sea. In particular, the author argues that there is no controversy surrounding China’s expectation that an Area of the Common Heritage of the Mankind would occur in the central part of the Arctic Ocean as long as the process of the continental shelf outer limits setting by the coastal states in the Arctic Ocean takes place within the procedures established by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Similarly, China accepts the regulation of vessels traffic alongside the Northern Sea Route based on the Article 234 of the Convention, and would not be able to claim the freedom of transit passage through the NSR straits unless it joined the U.S. claim that the straight baselines drawn by Russia (and Canada) effectively including those straits into their internal sea waters violate the provisions of the Convention. So far, China does not. And as long as the NSR water area remains ice-covered for most of the year, this issue remains of theoretical rather than of practical importance.

1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Traavik ◽  
Willy Østreng

Author(s):  
E. V. Kienko

Introduction.The article provides an analysis of China’s tough stance towards the applicability of the governance regime of the common heritage of mankind to the Arctic referring to the Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, in the general context of contemporary inter­national law.  Materials and methods.General scien­tific and private scientific methods of cogni­tion constitutes the methodological basis for the study.  Results of the study.In the course of the study the author concludes that China’s current stance towards the governance regime of the International seabed area as the common heritage of mankind and towards the international maritime law as a whole should not have exclusively negative assessments as it was during the period of the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China in 1960-1980. Objectively the long-term interests of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Fed­eration in the maintenance of international maritime law are aligned. However, a contemporary legal poli­cy of China differs from the policy stated at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It became more focused on the promotion of China’s national interests in the Arctic, on the creation of the Area of the common heritage of mankind in the Arc­tic Ocean, even though none of the Arctic Coastal State advocate this stance. Conclusions.In this article the author balanc­es China’s arguments in favour of applicability of norms of the international law related to the com­mon heritage of mankind to the Arctic with the Arc­tic Coastal States’ arguments against it according to the doctrine in the sphere of the international law in which the legal concept of the common heritage of mankind is clarified. The author reveals reasons of China’s support of the concept of the common heri­tage of mankind initiated by the USA and China’s effort to broadly interpret it especially towards the Arctic in terms of the Arctic Coastal States’ stance towards this issue contained in the materials of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973 – 1982).


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Haiyan Liu ◽  
Xiaoping Pang

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> In recent years, Arctic glaciers have gradually melted due to the global warming, which makes the exploitation of Arctic and its seabed resources possible. Though numerous disagreements and potentials over Arctic maritime jurisdiction still exist, the surround-Arctic nations have agreed the United Nations' Convention on the Law of the Sea to divide the Arctic Ocean into zones that can be regulated and exploited. The IBRU of Durham University has mapped the known claims, agreed boundaries and potential claims of the surround-Arctic nations in the Arctic to clear the maritime jurisdiction in the region. However, different countries may have different requirements within their jurisdictional areas. Clarifying these requirements is essential for Arctic Navigation of investigation ships and merchant ships for their route planning.</p><p>In this paper, based on the map of maritime jurisdiction and boundaries in Arctic region (IBRU), we analysed the international conventions and relevant laws of the surround-Arctic nations to find out the rights and obligations of ships in different zones. The limitations on activities and recommendations on navigation planning are marked for different zones according to different purposes, i.e. science or commerce. The map could not only provide navigational guidance for the activities in the Arctic Ocean, but offer references for the countries not surrounding the Arctic in the formulation of the Arctic strategies.</p>


Science ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 369 (6500) ◽  
pp. 198-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. M. Lewis ◽  
G. L. van Dijken ◽  
K. R. Arrigo

Historically, sea ice loss in the Arctic Ocean has promoted increased phytoplankton primary production because of the greater open water area and a longer growing season. However, debate remains about whether primary production will continue to rise should sea ice decline further. Using an ocean color algorithm parameterized for the Arctic Ocean, we show that primary production increased by 57% between 1998 and 2018. Surprisingly, whereas increases were due to widespread sea ice loss during the first decade, the subsequent rise in primary production was driven primarily by increased phytoplankton biomass, which was likely sustained by an influx of new nutrients. This suggests a future Arctic Ocean that can support higher trophic-level production and additional carbon export.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document