Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
LOS
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass………………………………………………………………...3-4
Uniqueness: Will Pass…………………………………………………………………….5
Bush Supports LOS……………………………………………………………………….6
LOS Good: Territory……………………………………………………………………...7
LOS Good: Heg…………………………………………………………………………...8
LOS Good: Energy Sources……………………………………………………………….9
LOS Good: Armed Conflict……………………………………………………………...10
LOS Good: Ecosystem…………………………………………………………………...11
LOS Good: Terrorism……………………………………………………………………12
LOS Good: Oil…………………………………………………………………………...13
LOS Amazing……………………………………………………………………………14
Brink Now………………………………………………………………………………..15
LOS Bad China…………………………………………………………………………..16
LOS Bad Heg…………………………………………………………………………….17
LOS Bad Ineffective……………………………………………………………………..18
LOS Bad Terrorism………………………………………………………………………19
LOS Terrible……………………………………………………………………………..20
LOS Bad: Russia Disad………………………………………………………………21-23
LOS Bad: Russia Disad Extensions………………………………………………….24-25
Tensions………………………………………………………………………………….26
No Tensions…………………………………………………………………………..27-29
US in Arctic……………………………………………………………………………...30
Canada in Arctic…………………………………………………………………………31
Canada……………………………………………………………………………………32
Random…………………………………………………………………………………..33
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has long divided U.S. conservatives.
About 155 nations have ratified the pact, and the treaty enjoys strong support from the
U.S. military, as well as leading business, legal and environmental lobbies. But intense
opposition from conservative groups who fear the pact infringes on U.S. sovereignty
has defeated a number of ratification drives in the Senate. The Bush administration
has disputes with its fellow Republicans in Congress as well. Its hands are tied when it
comes to making any claims to the U.N. commission until the Senate ratifies the Law of
the Sea accord. Ms. McMurray said the issue has become "very partisan" and,
"looking at the calendar" with a shortened congressional session because of the
presidential election, Senate ratification this year is a very long shot.
The Bush administration has called on the Senate to ratify the treaty, which the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed last year. But a handful of
Republican lawmakers have vowed to block it from passing the full Senate,
saying it would undermine US sovereignty.
To file a claim, however, a country must be a party to the Law of the Sea treaty, and the United
States is not. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1994, and President Bush supports
ratification, but fierce conservative opposition to the U.N. pact has blocked Senate approval,
where a two-thirds majority is needed. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has
long divided U.S. conservatives. About 155 nations have ratified the pact, and the treaty enjoys
strong support from the U.S. military, as well as leading business, legal and environmental
lobbies. But intense opposition from conservative groups who fear the pact
infringes on U.S. sovereignty has defeated a number of ratification drives
in the Senate. One-time Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, a former governor
of Arkansas, made a point of his opposition to the treaty during his campaign. Presumptive
Republican nominee Sen. John McCain supported the pact in the past, but has recently
suggested he would seek changes in the treaty.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 4
The quiet strategy did achieve something over the past few months: I can confirm that
there are more than enough senators in favor of U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
convention to get it through. Now it's up to Senators Reid and Biden to finish the job.
bid, the NOAA scientists said. International law allows any country to lay claim to territory up to
200 miles from its coast. But NOAA's new maps, which are based on an expedition that the
agency mounted last summer, show that the continental slope extends 100 miles further than the
US previously believed. Mayer said the new maps could help the US to meet the
criteria of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which governs the ownership of ocean
resources including undersea oil and gas deposits. More than 155 countries have
ratified the treaty to date, and Russia, Denmark and Canada have used it bolster their claims to
oil and gas in the Arctic region. The US has not yet ratified the pact.
Let me begin with the words of President Bush, a man who I rarely quote, who said last
May that, “Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States,
including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S.
sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 6
resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental
health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights
that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.”
"We have $5.6 million in the 2008 budget to assemble both the hardware and
scientific expertise to do this investigation," Ms. McMurray said. "We started a little bit
later than other countries, but we have a big coastline, and there are some promising
opportunities." Russia's planting of its flag on the Arctic seafloor in August angered other
countries, but experts say the only legal way to make a claim is through the U.N.
Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. "Planting flags on the seafloor
accomplishes nothing except for feeding the various nationalist beasts that seem to
hunger for a return to the 18th century," said Bernard Coakley, professor at the University
of Alaska's Geophysical Institute. To file a claim, however, a country must be a party
to the Law of the Sea treaty, and the United States is not. President Clinton signed the
treaty in 1994, and President Bush supports ratification, but fierce conservative
opposition to the U.N. pact has blocked Senate approval, where a two-thirds majority is
needed.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 7
Treaty supporters, including such conservative legal experts as University of Virginia law professor John
Norton Moore, argue the U.S. was the big winner in the Law of the Sea negotiations.
The U.S. will have a vast exclusive economic zone because of its extensive coastline.
U.S. firms will readily exploit the oceans' mineral and energy wealth with clear
property rights in place. U.S. military vessels can carry on their global duties while
exempt from the treaty's commercial restrictions.
Treaty opponents counter with one big idea - a deep distrust of the United Nations - and a host of objections
to specific provisions that they say will hamstring the U.S. military and subject U.S. corporations to an
unfriendly, unelected global bureaucracy.
If the treaty drafters had stuck to the original, modest mandate on navigation, "this treaty would have sailed
through," according to Heritage Foundation analyst Baker Spring.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 8
Initially, the United States had been reluctant to join the convention, fearing that its maritime
activities would be restricted. However, President George W. Bush in May requested
the Senate to support ratification of the convention, and the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee approved ratification of the convention in October. One
reason for the policy shift is that the United States has become increasingly
concerned about the spread of terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction
through maritime channels, especially since the so-called war on terrorism became the nation's
top priority in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Clearly, Washington realizes
it cannot ensure maritime security on its own and that it would be more beneficial
to seek other nations' involvement. The United States' shift toward ratifying UNCLOS,
which it had virtually ignored for more than two decades, also stems at least in part from a belief
that adherence would help expand the PSI regime.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 12
LOS AMAZING!!!!
National Security Network http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/608 Report 31 October
2007
The U.S. has a “compelling national interest” to ratify convention. As Deputy Secretary of State John
Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England explain, “The United States has a
compelling national interest in a stable international legal regime for the oceans.”
Retired Admiral and former Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark and Ambassador Thomas Pickering
explain that the convention, “would enable our armed forces to defend us at home and
abroad with legal certainty, and would vastly increase our sovereign rights off the
coasts of the United States.” The U.S. military needs this convention to fight
terrorism and better confront global challenges. The convention strengthens the right of
navigation by sea and by air, meaning that the U.S. Navy will not need to ask each country for a
“permission slip” each time it passes by another country. Importantly the convention allows the U.S. to
board private vessels on the high seas, which would allow the U.S. and its allies to more effectively combat
illicit smuggling. As Negroponte and England explain, “This is a critical time for America and our friends
and allies -- faced with a wider and more complex array of global and transnational security challenges than
ever before. Effectively meeting those challenges requires unimpeded maritime mobility -- the ability of
our forces to respond any time, anywhere, if so required.” The U.S. Coast Guard also wants the convention
ratified, because it would greatly expand U.S. territorial sovereignty from three miles
off the coast to twelve miles. This would empower the Coast Guard to better protect
the homeland and monitor U.S. costal waters. U.S. businesses want the convention
ratified, because it will be the “greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S.
history.” The convention grants sovereign coastal nations the right of an “exclusive economic zone” that
extends sovereign authority out to sea by 200 nautical miles. The United States will gain considerably,
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 14
as our economic zone may extend out to as much as 600 miles because of the Arctic shelf. As
Eagleburger and Moore note this would represent, “the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S.
history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska combined.” This
would be a huge boon to U.S. companies that work in oil, gas, and minerals, such as
nickel, copper, and cobalt. The convention is good for the environment. Apart from the substantial
security and economic benefits, the convention is also a win for the environment. The Law of the Sea
convention enables sovereign states to better regulate fishing stocks and ocean
pollution. Spencer Boyer explains that, “All parties to the treaty must cooperate in marine conservation
efforts through monitoring, technical assistance, and other measures. Furthermore, the treaty promotes and
protects scientific research.”
BRINK NOW
Bush needs to pass now in order to maintain US Heg
Sands, February 18 <Derek, writer for Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Inside Energy with Federal Lands,
“New sea maps could bolster US claim to oil, gas in disputed Arctic region”, February 18, 2008, lexis>
Other countries are already moving to make their claims. Russia made world-wide
headlines in the summer of 2007 when it sent an submarine to plant a Russian flag on
the sea floor at the North Pole. Canada as well as Greenland, through Denmark,
have also expressed interest in Arctic oil and gas. Kelly said NOAA's new maps
could help the US dispute the claims that have been made by Russia and
Canada. But the US would be at a disadvantage at this point, because it has not
yet ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, Kelly said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican and supporter of the treaty, warned last week
the United States stands to lose billions of barrels of oil in the Arctic if it
remains outside the Law of the Sea accord.
"I can tell you, if we're not willing to claim it, if we don't step up to claim it,
others will," she said in a speech on the Senate floor.
Ms. McMurray said the Bush administration is "working very hard, from the president down," on
supporting research, and there will have to be "a continuous contribution to this effort" in the next
several years. First breakthrough The effects of climate change on the Arctic is the topic of the
annual Arctic Forum, which began yesterday in Washington and is organized by Arctic Research
Consortium of the United States.
"The United States can little afford to have its sovereignty directly challenged by
this treaty, and we must activate the conservative grass-roots base to rise up in defense
of our country and our sovereignty," conservative activist Paul M. Weyrich said.
Cliff Kincaid, an anti-U.N. activist and president of America's Survival Inc., said the U.S.
does not need the Law of the Sea treaty to press its claims to the Arctic and its
mineral and energy riches. "Nobody bothers to point out that [U.S. Admiral Richard]
Byrd flew over the North Pole for the United States 80 years ago," he said.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 17
have been fortunate in that a concerted and sustained attack on the lifeblood of the global
economy has not yet materialized.
LOS TERRIBLE
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 2, 2008 Friday, USCG commandant pushes
for U.S. to sign Law of Sea Treaty, Bettina H. Chavanne, News; Pg. 5 Vol. 226 No. 24
But some analysts in Washington typically from conservative and libertarian think tanks have long
disagreed with U.S. accession to the treaty. The administration?s request is both fiscally
irresponsible and opposed to U.S. national interest, the Heritage Foundations Steven Groves said
in early February. If it is not withdrawn, Congress should reject the administrations
proposal and any other request to provide funding for international
organizations of which the United States is not a member.Groves argued that
the treaty creates another unaccountable and opaque international
organization, sets a precedent for international taxation of U.S. companies,
provides an avenue for international environmental regulation, and
threatens U.S. sovereignty by subjecting the United States and U.S.
companies to mandatory dispute resolution in international venues that
have traditionally been stacked against U.S. interests.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 20
ILULISATT, Greenland - Ministers from the five Arctic coast nations -- including
Canada -- declared at a landmark conference here this week that "the race for the North
Pole is cancelled," and that science and international law will now peacefully determine
who owns which parts of the vast, oil-rich polar seabed. But the race, in fact, has only
been transformed into a long, slow, three-way mud-wrestling match -- a five-year
struggle between Canada, Russia and Denmark for the murky ground that lies thousands of metres beneath the pole and which
ultimately will be decided, like any fight, by timing, power and strong-arm tactics -- or retreat. Science and law will
only go so far, say Canada's top polar experts, when it comes to defining the undersea boundaries between three nations
whose claims under a UN treaty are almost certain to overlap near the centre of the Arctic Ocean. That's when politics --
no holds barred -- comes into play.
Russia confirms its intention to defend its rights to the Arctic continental shelf on
the basis of international laws and scientific data, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
said at a meeting of the Russian government presidium on Monday. "We will stand up for our
continental shelf rights on the basis of international laws and the scientific research we are conducting," he said. Lavrov recalled the
Greenland meeting of the five Arctic nations - Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark. He said that the delegates
adopted a declaration. Lavrov noted that the sides agreed to resolve all the shelf questions on the basis of international laws, among
them the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 that provides sufficient tools for this.
Chilingarov is a polar explorer of the old school (he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union in the old days for saving an ice-bound ship
in Antarctica), but he is now deputy speaker of the Russian Duma (parliament) and Vladimir Putin's personal "envoy" to the Arctic.
Last summer, he took a three-man submarine down to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean precisely at the North Pole, and planted a
Russian flag in the seabed. "The Arctic is Russian. We must prove the North Pole is an
extension of the Russian landmass," he said afterwards, and affected surprise at the fact
that other countries with an Arctic coastline saw this as a challenge to their
sovereignty. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for example, flew to the Arctic the following week, and subsequently
announced that Canada would build six to eight new "ice-strengthened" warships for Arctic patrols. The other three
countries with Arctic coastlines, the United States (Alaska), Denmark (Greenland) and
Norway, are equally [is] suspicious of Russian intentions. The real issue is about who
owns the rights to the seabed, and the Russian claim is pretty ambitious. Moscow
claims that the Lomonosov Ridge, the subsea mountain range that goes straight across
the middle of the Arctic Ocean, is an extension of the Russian territorial shelf, and
therefore belongs to Russia all the way to the North Pole. Alternatively, if the Law of the
Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that claim, Moscow may have an even
broader claim in reserve. In the early 20th century, seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of
"sectors:" pie-shaped slices running along lines of longitude (which converge at the poles). The width of those slices depended on
where the various claimants owned territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean. Those claims are dormant
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 22
because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development in Antarctica, but the precedent has not been forgotten. By that
precedent, Russia could lay claim to about half the Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude
running from the far eastern and western ends of the country up to the North Pole - and in 1924 the old Soviet Union did precisely
Russia has the big
that. Nobody else accepted that claim then, and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But
Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered ice- breakers to make its claim stick, and
nobody else does.
The battle for "ownership" of the polar oil reserves has accelerated with the
disclosure that Russia has sent a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers into the
Arctic. It has reinforced fears that Moscow intends to annex "unlawfully" a vast
portion of the ice-covered Arctic, beneath which scientists believe up to 10 billion
tonnes of gas and oil could be buried. Russian ambition for control of the Arctic has
provoked Canada to double to $40 million funding for work to map the Arctic sea bed
in support its claim over the territory. The Russian icebreakers patrol huge areas of the
frozen ocean for months on end, cutting through ice up to 6ft thick. There are thought to
be eight in the region, dwarfing the British and U.S. fleets, neither of which include
nuclear-powered ships. Canada also plans to open an army training centre for cold-weather fighting at Resolute Bay and
a deep-water port on the northern tip of Baffin Island, both of which are close to the disputed region. The country's defence ministry
The crisis has raised the spectre of
intends to build a special fleet of patrol boats to guard the Northwest Passage.
Russia and the West joining in a new Cold War over the Arctic unless the United
Nations can resolve the dispute. The crisis erupted last year when a Russian submarine crew planted a flag on the
Lomonosov Ridge, a 2,000-kilometre area of seabed that Moscow says is Russian. Derided at the time as a stunt, the move focused
attention on the race for the Arctic's hidden treasures. No country owns the Arctic Ocean or the North Pole, but under the 1982 UN
Law of the Sea Convention, each country with a coast has sole exploitation rights in a limited "exclusive economic zone." On
ratification of the convention -- and the U.S. has yet to ratify it -- each country is given 10 years to make claims extending its zone
based on geology.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 23
Moscow had submitted a claim in 2001 to a Law of the Sea panel, asserting ownership of some
463,000 square miles of Arctic seabed based on the extent of its still largely unmapped northern shelf.
Russia was told it needed more scientific evidence to support its claim. Pavel Baev, a researcher at the
Oslo-based International Peace Research Institute, said Russian President Vladimir Putin was quick
to exploit the North Pole submarine venture in August for his own political
purposes, restoring Russian national pride and aggressively asserting Russian
interests on the global stage.
"The perception in Russia now is that there's a real geopolitical competition going
on in [the Arctic]," Mr. Baev said. "You need to move fast to advance your claim because it's every
nation for itself."
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 24
The disputes have sparked heated words in recent years, most notably when Denmark planted its flag on a tiny rock outcrop called
Hans Island in 2003 and again last year, when a Russian submarine crew put a flag on a disputed part of the ocean floor. But the
issues are covered by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by 151
countries. The five ministers agreed to stop bickering and work out their differences under that treaty. "The five nations have
now declared that they will follow the rules," said Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller. "We have hopefully quelled all myths
about a race for the North Pole once and for all." They
agreed to work co-operatively on environmental
and security concerns in the Arctic, where warming temperatures and melting ice are leading to a dramatic increase in
human activity and threats to the fragile environment. Environmentalists slammed the deal as a "carving up" of a region that's still
relatively pristine but promises great wealth in oil, minerals, trade and tourism. They want a global treaty for the Arctic similar to the
one that bans mining and military activity in the Antarctic. They also complained that representatives of the other Arctic nations, as
well as Inuit and environment groups, were kept out of the closed-door session. "We would suggest that all the nations up there should
agree not to open it up for drilling," said Tarjai Haaland, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Nordic. The five nations
explicitly rejected the call for a replacement treaty. There is no need to develop "a new comprehensive international legal regime to
govern the Arctic Ocean," the declaration stated. A Canadian expert on the Arctic agreed. Better to have a peaceful means of resolving
disputes than embark on a lengthy, unpredictable try at a new treaty, said Michael Byers, professor of global law at the University of
British Columbia. "The Law of the Sea is not perfect, but we have it," he said. "That the five countries reaffirmed their commitment to
it can only be a good thing in a time of incredibly rapid change. We're not dealing with the Wild West here." Critics noted the irony of
the conference location. The deal to allocate the huge fossil fuel reserves was held near the Ilulissat glacier - a world heritage site -
that is melting and flowing toward the sea at an increasing rate as climate change warms Greenland. The major disputes
centre on ocean-floor areas that are beyond the countries' 370-kilometre territorial
limit but, under the Law of the Sea, are open to being claimed because they are part
of the continental shelf or ridges extending from it. Canada is spending $40 million to map the seabed to
support its claim for parts of the seabed, and the other four nations are preparing their own evidence. Canada and the
United States also disagree on whether the Northwest Passage is an international
waterway, and over how the international boundary between Alaska and Yukon
should be extended into the Beaufort Sea.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 26
NO Tensions
Alternatively, if the Law of the Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that claim,
Moscow may have an even broader claim in reserve.
In the early 20th century, seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of
"sectors": pie-shaped slices running along lines of longitude (which converge at the
poles). The width of those slices depended on where the various claimants owned
territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean.
Those claims are dormant because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development
in Antarctica, but the precedent has not been forgotten. By that precedent, Russia
could lay claim to about half the Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude
running from the far eastern and western ends of the country up to the North Pole -
and, in 1924, the old Soviet Union did precisely that.
Nobody else accepted that claim then and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But
Russia has the big Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered icebreakers to make its claim
stick and nobody else does.
The US is working with Russian and others to find a peaceful way to divide
the Arctic.
Fedyashin, June 3 <Andrei, political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti, The Monitor,
“Cutting the Arctic Pie”, June 3, 2008, lexis>
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 27
Ilulissat, Greenland, will go down in history as the polar city where the ice moved for the first time _
foreign ministers and other representatives of the five Arctic nations _ Denmark (Greenland is its province),
Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the
Arctic. It seems they have agreed on how to divide the Arctic Ocean, and, most important, its mineral-rich
continental shelf. The meeting produced the Ilulissat Declaration, which makes it plain that there is no need
to draft a separate international agreement _ in settling territorial and other problems the
participants will be guided by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.Speaking at
the conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We do not share the alarming
predictions about a clash of interests between Arctic and even non-Arctic countries, about
a `battle for the Arctic.'" Other ministers spoke in much the same vein.It is a good sign that talks will
precede the cutting of the Arctic pie. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a powerful
document of international law, almost a maritime constitution. It regulates what can and
cannot be done on and with the ocean. But it is perhaps alarming that the participants in the
conference are unanimously optimistic. All of them have grievances with their neighbors, or are displeased
about the ocean's demarcation. Moreover, interests invariably clash when it comes to dividing
no-man's-lands or marine basins that abound in mineral riches.
NO Tensions
Countries, including the US, are peacefully dividing the Arctic.
The New York Times, May 29 <Andrew C. Revkin, ”5 Countries Agree to Talk, Not Compete, Over the Arctic”,
Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 10, May 29, 2008, lexis>
Diplomats from the five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean adopted a declaration on Wednesday aimed at
defusing tensions over the likelihood that global warming will open northern waters to shipping, energy
extraction and other activities. The agreement, reached after a daylong meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland,
said the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark saw no need for new
accords on Arctic matters and would use existing international laws like the Law of the
Sea Treaty to resolve disputes. Greenland belongs to Denmark. The countries also agreed to work
more cooperatively to limit environmental risks attending more Arctic shipping and commerce and to
coordinate potential rescue operations given the rising number of tourists heading north as sea ice
increasingly retreats in the summer. The meeting capped a frenetic year of Arctic activity as
countries vied to demonstrate their polar hegemony with a mix of rhetoric, military
maneuvers and, in the case of Russia, a submarine voyage to the seabed at the North
Pole. One of the two participating minisubmarines left a titanium national flag on the bottom, 14,000 feet
beneath the shifting sea ice. In a statement, Per Stig Moller, Denmark's foreign minister, alluded to that
voyage and the media blitz that followed. ''We have politically committed ourselves to resolve
all differences through negotiations,'' he said. ''And thus we have hopefully, once and for all, killed
all the myths of a 'race to the North Pole.' The rules are in place. And the five states have now
declared that they will abide by them.''
extraction and other activities. The agreement, reached after a daylong meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland,
said the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark saw no need for new
accords on Arctic matters and would use existing international laws like the Law of the
Sea Treaty to resolve disputes. Greenland belongs to Denmark. The countries also agreed to work
more cooperatively to limit environmental risks attending more Arctic shipping and commerce and to
coordinate potential rescue operations given the rising number of tourists heading north as sea ice
increasingly retreats in the summer. The meeting capped a frenetic year of Arctic activity as
countries vied to demonstrate their polar hegemony with a mix of rhetoric, military
maneuvers and, in the case of Russia, a submarine voyage to the seabed at the North
Pole. One of the two participating minisubmarines left a titanium national flag on the bottom, 14,000 feet
beneath the shifting sea ice. In a statement, Per Stig Moller, Denmark's foreign minister, alluded to that
voyage and the media blitz that followed. ''We have politically committed ourselves to resolve
all differences through negotiations,'' he said. ''And thus we have hopefully, once and for all, killed
all the myths of a 'race to the North Pole.' The rules are in place. And the five states have now
declared that they will abide by them.''
NO Tensions
The US is working with Russian and others to find a peaceful way to divide
the Arctic.
Fedyashin, June 3 <Andrei, political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti, The Monitor,
“Cutting the Arctic Pie”, June 3, 2008, lexis>
Ilulissat, Greenland, will go down in history as the polar city where the ice moved for the first time _
foreign ministers and other representatives of the five Arctic nations _ Denmark (Greenland is its province),
Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the
Arctic. It seems they have agreed on how to divide the Arctic Ocean, and, most important, its mineral-rich
continental shelf. The meeting produced the Ilulissat Declaration, which makes it plain that there is no need
to draft a separate international agreement _ in settling territorial and other problems the
participants will be guided by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.Speaking at
the conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We do not share the alarming
predictions about a clash of interests between Arctic and even non-Arctic countries, about
a `battle for the Arctic.'" Other ministers spoke in much the same vein.It is a good sign that talks will
precede the cutting of the Arctic pie. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a powerful
document of international law, almost a maritime constitution. It regulates what can and
cannot be done on and with the ocean. But it is perhaps alarming that the participants in the
conference are unanimously optimistic. All of them have grievances with their neighbors, or are displeased
about the ocean's demarcation. Moreover, interests invariably clash when it comes to dividing
no-man's-lands or marine basins that abound in mineral riches.
Russia won’t pursue its claims in the Arctic by force. There are no resources
for them to find.
Dyer, May 29 <Gwynne, London-based independent journalist, The Salt Lake Tribune, “Fight brewing over oil rights under
shrinking Arctic icecap”, May 29, 2008, lexis,>
That is where the current panic comes from. It probably won't end up in a new Cold War, but it
has certainly got the hens in the chicken coop all stirred up. As is often the case with hens, they are
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 29
overreacting. Russia is in a more assertive mood than it was a decade ago, but there are no signs that it
intends to pursue its claims by force. Moreover, there is no serious basis for the claim that a
quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas reserves lie under the Arctic Ocean. It
always seemed implausible, given that the Arctic Ocean only accounts for slightly less than 3 percent of the
Earth's surface, but in fact the U.S. Geological Survey never said anything of the sort. Neither has any other
authoritative source, yet this factoid has gained such currency that it even influences government policy.
Isn't it interesting how readily people will believe something when they really want to?
US in the Arctic
The US is staking claims in the Arctic.
Washington Times, May 13 <Nicholas Kralev, The Washington Times, “U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions
on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty”, WORLD; BRIEFING: THE AMERICAS; A15, May 13, 2008, lexis>
The United States is spending $5.6 million this year on scientific research in support of a
claim to large amounts of oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean that it does not have the legal
right to make. The money is being spent to prove that the foot of the U.S. continental
slope off Alaska's coast extends beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit that any country can
claim as part of its territory under the U.N. Law of the Sea treaty - which the U.S. Senate has
never ratified. "Because of [climate] changes, everyone wants to understand what the implications are,"
said Claudia A. McMurray, assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and
scientific affairs. The recent ice-melting in the Arctic has made the region's natural riches more accessible,
and the race to lay claim to those resources is in full speed. But the politically charged U.S.
debate over ratifying the agreement raises questions about the U.S. ability to keep up in
the race. Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway also are spending tens of millions of
dollars to prove that large parts of the Arctic's seabed are a "natural prolongation" of their
territory. "We have $5.6 million in the 2008 budget to assemble both the hardware and scientific expertise
to do this investigation," Ms. McMurray said. "We started a little bit later than other countries, but we
have a big coastline, and there are some promising opportunities." Russia's planting of its flag
on the Arctic seafloor in August angered other countries, but experts say the only legal way to make a
claim is through the U.N. Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. "Planting flags on
the seafloor accomplishes nothing except for feeding the various nationalist beasts that seem to hunger for a
return to the 18th century," said Bernard Coakley, professor at the University of Alaska's Geophysical
Institute.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 30
said that Canadian scientists are amassing evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge, which extends under the
Arctic Ocean, originates in the North American continent. The United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea was fashioned to prevent territorial claims based on raw force, and has a process for establishing
jurisdiction. Under the treaty, countries have jurisdiction for 111 kilometers beyond the base of a
continental shelf, but that claim can be extended for under-sea ridges extending from the shelf. Ottawa
will spend $40 million over the next several years mapping the Arctic Ocean and
providing evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge is, in fact, part of the North American
continental shelf. If the U.N. validates that claim, Canada can assert sovereignty over the
seabed all along the ridge, although experts expect Canada to claim the area west of the ridge and
Denmark will assert sovereignty over the area east of the ridge and closer to Greenland. Lunn said that, in
total, Canada's claim would be about 1.8 million square kilometers. He said the U.N. body
should easily validate Canada's claim, which will be submitted in 2013. He said Canada needs to
extend sovereignty over the region to ensure that any resource development is socially and
environmentally responsible.
CANADA
LOS takes Arctic waters from Canada which kills their sovereignty and
arctic ecosystem
Weber, 08. [Bob, The Canadian Press, May 27, North Bay Nugget, pg A6, Control of High Arctic waters 'critically important']
Random
No risk of oil shock, most oil exists in the Arctic.
Dyer, 08. [Gwynne, London Based Independent Journalist, June 2, 2008, The Daily Gleaner (New Brunswick) pg. C8]
If we are heading for an Arctic Ocean that is mostly ice-free in the summer, then
drilling for gas and oil beneath that ocean can soon begin.
Hardly a week goes by without somebody pointing to the U.S. Geological Survey's report
that the Arctic basin contains a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.
Under current rules, the rights of coastal countries over sea floor resources are limited
to a fairly narrow strip of offshore territory -- no more than 350 nautical miles (648.2 kilometres), and only
in places where the continental shelf extends that far out from the coast. But coastal states can claim much
more territory if they able to show that undersea mountain ridges or other offshore
geological features -- such as the buildup of sediment from river discharges into the
sea -- constitute a natural underwater extension of the national land mass. If so, they can
claim the ridge -- until the point where it drops 2,500 metres below the ocean surface -- plus 100 nautical miles (185.2 kilometres) of
seabed from that point. Under that key provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, all five polar countries are
compiling sea floor research to claim "Article 76" rights over potentially huge, Saskatchewan-sized swaths of Arctic Ocean bottom.
And one of the most contentious parts of the underwater Arctic is proving to be the Lomonosov Ridge, a submerged mountain that is
an excellent bet to qualify as a continental extension. It stretches thousands of kilometres from the Danish-Canadian boundary waters
north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, directly past the North Pole and across the Arctic Ocean toward the Siberian coast.
Russian, Canadian and Danish researchers all have gathered sea floor survey data
suggesting the ridge is an extension of their respective countries. Last summer, Russia launched
the "race" for the North Pole -- and prompted outrage in Canada, Denmark and elsewhere -- by sending a mini-submarine to the four-
kilometre-deep sea floor at the pole and depositing a Russian flag made of titanium. More detailed scientific
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 33
analysis should ultimately determine which parts of the ridge belong to the Eurasian
continent, which belong to North America.