of the Arctic Ocean. This phenomenon could be seen in the proceedings leading to
the adoption of the Polar Code by the IMO.
2.3 Increasing Need for Regulation Beyond the Law
of the Sea Convention
While the initial legal developments took place in Canada regarding the NWP, the
rapidly growing hydrocarbon industry in Northern Russia has made the Northern
Sea Route highly relevant from a practical perspective. There, a substantial portion
of the maritime traffic consists of regional traffic, primarily the transport of oil and
gas from Russia to China. This trend is likely to continue as climate change makes
northern areas more accessible for exploration and exploitation. The transport of
dangerous cargo such as oil raises particular environmental and governance concerns. The same is true for other uses of Arctic marine spaces, for example cruise
shipping, bioprospecting or fishing.
The increasing need for regulation has been evident for some time. Article
234 UNCLOS is highly relevant, as large parts of the NSR are in Russia’s Exclusive
Economic Zone. But while UNCLOS serves important regulatory purposes, Article
234 UNCLOS in itself covers only those parts of the Arctic Ocean which are “icecovered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly
severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of
the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the
marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the
ecological balance”.
32 The extent of the coastal State’s EEZ limits the geographical
applicability of Article 234 UNCLOS but many activities that have the potential to
harm the Arctic marine environment occur in the high seas or on the continental
shelves. The central part of the Arctic Ocean is defined as high seas/continental
shelves both in UNCLOS and in customary international law. So far, all coastal
States of the Arctic Ocean have followed the rules and procedures for establishing
sovereign rights over continental shelves as set out in the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though the US is still to accede to the
UNCLOS: Russia, Norway and Denmark have made submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS); Norway’s submission was the
subject of CLCS recommendations in 2009
33 while Canada’s 2013 submission
(which does not include the Arctic Ocean
34 ), Denmark’s 2014 submission and
Russia’s 2015 resubmission await review by the CLCS
35 and the US continues to
32 Art. 234, UNCLOS.
33 CLCS (2009).
34 CLCS (2014). Canada is currently preparing a submission to the CLCS regarding the Arctic
Ocean, see also Koivurova (2011).
35 DOALOS (2018).
64
T. Koivurova et al.
the adoption of the Polar Code by the IMO.
2.3 Increasing Need for Regulation Beyond the Law
of the Sea Convention
While the initial legal developments took place in Canada regarding the NWP, the
rapidly growing hydrocarbon industry in Northern Russia has made the Northern
Sea Route highly relevant from a practical perspective. There, a substantial portion
of the maritime traffic consists of regional traffic, primarily the transport of oil and
gas from Russia to China. This trend is likely to continue as climate change makes
northern areas more accessible for exploration and exploitation. The transport of
dangerous cargo such as oil raises particular environmental and governance concerns. The same is true for other uses of Arctic marine spaces, for example cruise
shipping, bioprospecting or fishing.
The increasing need for regulation has been evident for some time. Article
234 UNCLOS is highly relevant, as large parts of the NSR are in Russia’s Exclusive
Economic Zone. But while UNCLOS serves important regulatory purposes, Article
234 UNCLOS in itself covers only those parts of the Arctic Ocean which are “icecovered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly
severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of
the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the
marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the
ecological balance”.
32 The extent of the coastal State’s EEZ limits the geographical
applicability of Article 234 UNCLOS but many activities that have the potential to
harm the Arctic marine environment occur in the high seas or on the continental
shelves. The central part of the Arctic Ocean is defined as high seas/continental
shelves both in UNCLOS and in customary international law. So far, all coastal
States of the Arctic Ocean have followed the rules and procedures for establishing
sovereign rights over continental shelves as set out in the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though the US is still to accede to the
UNCLOS: Russia, Norway and Denmark have made submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS); Norway’s submission was the
subject of CLCS recommendations in 2009
33 while Canada’s 2013 submission
(which does not include the Arctic Ocean
34 ), Denmark’s 2014 submission and
Russia’s 2015 resubmission await review by the CLCS
35 and the US continues to
32 Art. 234, UNCLOS.
33 CLCS (2009).
34 CLCS (2014). Canada is currently preparing a submission to the CLCS regarding the Arctic
Ocean, see also Koivurova (2011).
35 DOALOS (2018).
64
T. Koivurova et al.