I was reading this article on Time called Fight for the Top of the World. Its about the fact that the sea ice in the Artic is melting…and that this is opening up the Artic in ways never before possible. For example a true, useable north west passage is now possible, cutting thousands of miles off a trip from Asia to Europe/North America. Another thing is that thinning ice means that the potential resources in the area (natural gas and oil mainly) are accessible for exploitation as they haven’t been in the past.
The problem is…there are several countries that feel they have a right to these resources and that their nations have a legitimate claim to them. How will this be resolved? From the article its pretty obvious (if they are correct) that its not a matter of if these resources and trade routes will be exploited…its a matter of when and by whom.
For debate…thoughts? How do you think this should be resolved? How do you think it will be resolved? How will this exploitation further impact the environment? How will it impact the respective economies of the nations involved? Will this actually turn into a fight…and if so, what kind of fight?
I don’t see that the new open seas are going to really affect anyone but Canada. (I’m pretty sure that the new Northwest Passage can be entered without involving Kalaalit Nunaat/Greenland or their Danish association.) Similarly, the open seas North of Eurasia should be pretty easy to identify according to existing national claims.
What problems are expected? I am aware that Canada has voiced a claim for sovereignty of the passage in the hopes of being able to regulate issues of pollution and ecological damage. This does fly in the face of current sea law where, (for example), the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosporus Straits are considered international waters despite being “inside” Turkey. On the other hand, the St. Mary, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers are not treated as “international” in the same way, despite being the border between the U.S. and Canada on an international sea route. So that will haveto be resolved.
On the other hand, I see no way for any countries other than current claimants to have access to natural resources. (Replaced lost C in title.)
I’m not very conversant with the treaty language but from what I’ve been reading lately it appears there is some dispute on how far claims for territorial waters can extend. As I understand it, the common practice is for the shoreline - where the water meets the land - to be considered the start of territorial waters which extend a fixed distance from there. However, there is apparently an alternate interpretation that the underwater shelf which extends out from the shore should be considered part of the country itself and the territorial waters then extend from the point where the shelf drops down into open water.
The Russians are the ones currently pushing this interpretation. They recently conducted some submarine geological sampling which they say demonstrates that Russia’s underwater shelf extends hundreds of miles into the Arctic and they are claiming exclusive ownership of this area.
For one thing, the United States has never signed or ratified the Law of the Sea. And under this Administration, which has made a point of repudiating (or, in some cases, simply disregarding) a lot of international treaties we had before, it’s not likely to.