provisions of the Convention. The primary concern in negotiations leading to the
adoption of UNCLOS was that the extension of coastal State jurisdiction would
restrict the freedom of navigation and that also the 200 nm EEZ was inappropriate in
enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. With regard to coastal State jurisdiction, no
distinction is made to enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and Article 123 UNCLOS
only encourages States to cooperate “in the exercise of their rights and in the
performance of their duties under this Convention”.
47
So far, there is no comprehensive legal regime covering the central Arctic Ocean
as such, apart from UNCLOS. This multilateral treaty forms the core of the international regulations of the Arctic Ocean. The special nature of the central Arctic Ocean,
which has never been used for navigational purposes due to the presence of sea-ice
which until a few decades ago was considered to be permanent and which is now
becoming accessible for surface navigation for the first time, has led to piecemeal
regulatory efforts that have, over time, evolved into a patchwork of international
rules. The rules cover issues including the early efforts to protect wildlife, for
example through the 1911 Convention Respecting Measures for the Preservation
and Protection of Fur Seals in the North Pacific Ocean,
48 the 1957 Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals and the International Agreement on
the Conservation of Polar Bears of 1973
49 and the 1988 Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear
Management Agreement.
50 While the former two agreements covered the northernmost parts of the Pacific rather than the central Arctic Ocean, which at the time was
considered to be permanently ice-covered, the Polar Bear Agreements went further
in terms of geographical scope. The 1988 agreement included quotas for the
respective parties, highlighting that these treaties were meant to protect animals
(as is the case with the protection of whales) not as such or as a contribution to
biodiversity conservation, but as a resource meant to be used by humans. The same
approach of preservation with a view to potential exploitation applies to the limitation of fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean.
51 In addition to the Law of the Sea
Convention, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement
52 and the Code of Conduct for
47 Pharand (2007), p. 53; Weidemann (2014), pp. 84–85.
48 Convention Respecting Measures for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals and Sea Otters
in the North Pacific Ocean, signed July 7, 1911, the Treaty text is available at the American Journal
of International Law, Supplement Official documents 1911, Vol. 5 (4), p. 267.
49 Interim Convention between the United States of America, Canada, Japan and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on conservation of North Pacific fur seals, signed 9 February 1957, entered into
force 14 October 1957, 314 UNTS 106; Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears signed
15 November 1973, entered into force 26 May 1976, 2898 UNTS 243.
50 The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement is not an international treaty but an
agreement between indigenous peoples in two countries (United States and Canada).
51 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, 3 October
2018,
text
available
at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?
uri¼CELEX:52018PC0454.
52 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
4 The Arctic Ocean: Are We Ready to Govern a New Ocean?
67
adoption of UNCLOS was that the extension of coastal State jurisdiction would
restrict the freedom of navigation and that also the 200 nm EEZ was inappropriate in
enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. With regard to coastal State jurisdiction, no
distinction is made to enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and Article 123 UNCLOS
only encourages States to cooperate “in the exercise of their rights and in the
performance of their duties under this Convention”.
47
So far, there is no comprehensive legal regime covering the central Arctic Ocean
as such, apart from UNCLOS. This multilateral treaty forms the core of the international regulations of the Arctic Ocean. The special nature of the central Arctic Ocean,
which has never been used for navigational purposes due to the presence of sea-ice
which until a few decades ago was considered to be permanent and which is now
becoming accessible for surface navigation for the first time, has led to piecemeal
regulatory efforts that have, over time, evolved into a patchwork of international
rules. The rules cover issues including the early efforts to protect wildlife, for
example through the 1911 Convention Respecting Measures for the Preservation
and Protection of Fur Seals in the North Pacific Ocean,
48 the 1957 Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals and the International Agreement on
the Conservation of Polar Bears of 1973
49 and the 1988 Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear
Management Agreement.
50 While the former two agreements covered the northernmost parts of the Pacific rather than the central Arctic Ocean, which at the time was
considered to be permanently ice-covered, the Polar Bear Agreements went further
in terms of geographical scope. The 1988 agreement included quotas for the
respective parties, highlighting that these treaties were meant to protect animals
(as is the case with the protection of whales) not as such or as a contribution to
biodiversity conservation, but as a resource meant to be used by humans. The same
approach of preservation with a view to potential exploitation applies to the limitation of fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean.
51 In addition to the Law of the Sea
Convention, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement
52 and the Code of Conduct for
47 Pharand (2007), p. 53; Weidemann (2014), pp. 84–85.
48 Convention Respecting Measures for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals and Sea Otters
in the North Pacific Ocean, signed July 7, 1911, the Treaty text is available at the American Journal
of International Law, Supplement Official documents 1911, Vol. 5 (4), p. 267.
49 Interim Convention between the United States of America, Canada, Japan and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on conservation of North Pacific fur seals, signed 9 February 1957, entered into
force 14 October 1957, 314 UNTS 106; Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears signed
15 November 1973, entered into force 26 May 1976, 2898 UNTS 243.
50 The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement is not an international treaty but an
agreement between indigenous peoples in two countries (United States and Canada).
51 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, 3 October
2018,
text
available
at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?
uri¼CELEX:52018PC0454.
52 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
4 The Arctic Ocean: Are We Ready to Govern a New Ocean?
67