QARMA

What does it mean by sovereignty of the Arctic and what role should the UN play
with regards to its militarization?
What framework shall be used to outline the rights of nations over the Arctic
resources and routes?
Considering the dangers of Climate change, should the natural resources of the
Arctic be exploited? And if so, who shall have the access to such sites?
Does the UNCLOS (UN Convention of Law on Sea) apply to Arctic and to what
extent?
Keeping the International Law in regard, what will the UNs role be to slow down
the militarization in the arctic?

U.S. ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) probably would
not improve Russian-American relations and alleviate tendencies toward the
militarization of the Arctic.

Last December, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the expansion of

Russia's military presence in the Arctic. The move came after Canada had signaled
its intention to make a territorial claim to the North Pole and surrounding waters.
"We will not only reopen the military base, but will also restore the airfield to
working order and make it possible for emergency services, hydrologists, and
climate specialists to work together to ensure the Northern Sea Route will be
secure and effective," Putin announced at a meeting of Russian defense officials.
Russia's national interests in the Arctic are significant, because the Arctic region is
destined to become a new source of Russian natural resources in the future. As a
result, Russia's Arctic policy is aimed at gradually establishing political and social
economic conditions to realize this goal.
The foreign policy component of the strategy is to protect Russia's economic
interests and maintain security. Among the most important goals in Russia's
foreign policy are to establish territorial borders (especially as related to the
continental shelf), to arrange for joint exploration of resources in the border
areas, and to use polar transport routes for international traffic.
For Russia, which has no real allies in the Arctic, it is necessary to build a
cooperative relationship with the United States, which is one of the most
influential members of Arctic regional policy. The U.S. and Russia have no pressing
conflicts over the Arctic, although Russia has not yet ratified the agreement on
dividing up territory in the Bering Sea. In addition, Russia still has to negotiate
with the United States on fishing rights in the Chukchi Sea, on setting the
delimitation line from the exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles) to the
North Pole, and on the conditions of use of the Northern Sea Route.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the U.S. is the only one of the five
Arctic coastal states that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
of 1982 (UNCLOS), the largest, and likely one of the most important, legal
agreements in history that attempts to create a unified regime to govern the
rights of nations with respect to the world's oceans and shelf zones. What are the
perspectives of ratification? Can the ratification contribute to improvement
Russian-American relations in Arctic and prevention of militarization of the
region?
Perspective of the U.S. ratification of UNCLOS: Pros and cons
The attitude of the U.S. political leadership and the U.S. Congress towards
ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 has been contradictory
for many years. In recent years, the number of its supporters has grown.
However, there is still an influential opposition in political circles and in the U.S.
Congress that makes the following arguments:
- Almost of the planet has been placed under the control of international
organizations.
- The convention limits the sovereignty of the United States and the freedom of
navigation, including restricting military and intelligence activities.
- It would decrease profits for American companies that are developing resources
on the continental shelf.
- The convention was adopted to favor the third world and with the support of
the Soviet Union in order to reallocate resources and rights.
- Ratification would create a dangerous precedent, in which any resource that is
not yet under some national jurisdiction could be declared collective property
(Antarctica, outer space, the Internet).
- U.S. domestic law, which takes precedence over international law, never limited
the extent of the continental shelf, so ratifying the convention would not be
advantageous.
Representatives of the extreme right in the United States Senate have taken an
openly negative stance. They are supported by many Republicans that are trying
to put pressure on Barack Obama on other issues.
Supporters of ratification emphasize that the situation has changed dramatically.
The U.S. removed the most important controversial issues by adopting
amendments to the Convention in 1994, that, among other things, invalidated
provisions on financial contributions and compulsory transfer of technology to
developing countries for drilling beyond the 200-mile zone (international seabed
area).

hose that are pushing for ratification have the following arguments:
- The Convention does not impose compulsory settlement of disputes through
international bodies established by the Convention.
- The Convention allows states to opt out of discussions on issues of critical
importance to their national interests, including disputes over maritime
boundaries.
- The rule stipulating that submarines pass through the territorial waters of
another state after having surfaced is not binding, so there would be no
restrictions on military or intelligence activities in the territorial waters of other
states. These actions are not explicitly prohibited by the Convention, and
therefore it would not be a violation.
- The formal accession to the Convention is important because the Arctic coastal
states for various reasons are actively trying to introduce their own navigation
rules and restricting the freedom of navigation.
Obama's intention to go ahead with ratification despite the opposition of the
Republicans has the support of the Department of State, the Department of
Defense, the intelligence community, the Department of Commerce and Energy,
and several oil companies that are developing offshore zones. After the last
hearing on ratifying the convention held in June 2012 by the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, 34 senators (out of 100) signed a statement against ratification.
Comparing the positions of supporters and opponents of ratification, it is
apparent that the economic, political, and military arguments basically boil down
to a discussion of how the U.S. can keep a "free hand." Both sides consider this
principle to be non-negotiable. Both sides also agree that, regardless of
ratification, the U.S. will circumvent any provisions of the Convention that are not
in its national interest.
Opponents of ratification have almost no meaningful objections, their arguments
are very general. The ideologically-driven desire of some of the political elite to
ensure the U.S. can act unilaterally has helped stall ratification. But overall,
ratification is in sync with Obama's national security strategy, which focuses on
the intelligent combination of "soft" and "hard" power. From this, we can
conclude that the obstacles to ratification are mostly just domestic politics and
may soon be removed.
Will Russia benefit if the U.S. ratifies the UNCLOS?
If the U.S. Senate ratifies the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, Russia
will not witness any significant changes in bilateral relations in the Arctic. It is
obvious that the U.S. intends to apply the Convention only when it coincides with
its national interests. Potential conflicts will be resolved through bilateral
negotiations rather than UNCLOS provisions directly.
Since the Convention does not oblige all contentious issues to be decided within
its rules and institutions, the United States can either appeal to precedent or
refuse to discuss an inconvenient problem in terms of the Convention.
Apparently, some Russian experts underestimate the fact that under international
law, common law prevails over codified law. This allows the U.S. to bypass the
Convention and is all the more reason to not consider it a universal source of law
on Arctic issues.
In line with this logic, experts from the Ministry of Defense and the Department of
State submitted their official conclusions to the U.S. Senate in which they found
that ratification would not impose any restrictions on the military.
Moreover if the Convention was ratified, the U.S. could appeal to the right of
transit in territorial waters enshrined in the Convention as grounds for legal
military presence not only in the Barents Sea, but also anywhere in the world. In
case of complaints about the inadmissibility of covert presence or military
activities in territorial waters, the United States could exercise the right of self-
interpretation, challenging what is meant by military activities in the particular
case (Article 298-1 of the Convention).
U.S. military activities cannot be a matter of contention within the framework of
the Convention. Similarly, Russia will not receive any positive changes to the
delimitation of the Bering Sea or defining the boundary line in the Chukchi Sea
and beyond the exclusive economic zone towards the pole.
Thus, strategic environment and level of cooperation between Russia and the
United States in the Arctic will be based on the state of their bilateral relations in
general, and not on the U.S. decision of whether or not to ratify the UN Law of the
Sea.
Bloc Positions
Russian Federation
Russia views the Arctic region as an area of crucial importance to the countrys
economic and strategic interests. The Arctic is, on one hand, a vital source of
resource, producing 11% of the nations GDP; on the other hand, it provides
Russia with access to three oceans and military bases, which grants numerous
advantages in terms of geographical position. In consequence, Russia strongly
opposes the internationalization of the Arctic; it plans to deploy special military
forces in the region in order to guarantee military security under various military
and political situations.
The United States
After George W. Bush stepped down from his position, he issued a presidential
directive mostly about the United States Arctic Policy, emphasizing the strategic
significance of the Arctic for the United States in relation to the missile defense
and early warning systems. Bush also implied that the US is also entering the
scientific and military race for sovereignty over parts of the Arctic. However, the
US takes a different approach from Russia, in that it has always supported the
need for freedom of navigation in the Arctic Ocean, focusing on the fact that its
vessels have the right of international navigation both through Northwest Passage
and straights along Northern Sea Route.
Canada
The prime minister of Canada announced the creation of two military bases in the
Canadian Arctic; to underline the determination of Canada to maintain its
sovereignty in the Arctic, he also declared that eight patrol vessels would be built
and deployed in this region. Likewise, Canada considers the attempts of EU and
US for freedom of navigation in the Arctic as questions to Canadian jurisdiction
regarding navigation safety in the Northwest Passage. Canada believes that the
passage is part of its internal waters and thus should be regulated by the
Canadian national law.
Norway
The only Scandinavian country with direct access to the Arctic Ocean, Norway
focuses its attention on the issues of resource management, environmental
impact, and maritime transport. It is aware of the increased military presence of
Russia and expresses its concern over the process.
Denmark
Denmark is involved in a territorial dispute with Canada over the statute of the
Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel. The fact that it is the only Nordic country
that is a member of both NATO and EU shows that Denmark is generally
supportive of arctic cooperation.
The European Union
With three of its member states being the Arctic StatesSweden, Finland, and
Denmarkthe European Union claims for a permanent observer status within the
Arctic Council. However, it opposes the concept of an Arctic treaty, stating the
full implementation of already existing obligations, rather than proposing new
instruments should be avoided. Its interest is to keep the balance between the
preservation of Arctic environment and the need for sustainable use of potential
resources.
Nigeria
Nigeria has many offshore oil reserves and is strongly interested in maintaining
the nations' individual control of oceans. Its efforts to keep it set the tone of its
foreign policy regarding the sea. The country is a signatory to the UNCLOS.
NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also an important player in the area,
given the fact that 5 of the Arctic countries are NATO members (the United
States, Canada, Denmark, Iceland and Norway) and the purpose of the
organization is to ensure the safety of all its members and to provide them with
the means for collective defense in case a third party undertakes hostile actions
against one or several of the member countries.
Committee:
DISEC
Topic: Militarization of the Arctic (USA)
I. OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE
The Arctic regions legal status has been widely disputed over the last several
decades with several states within the Polar circle claiming territorial sovereignty
over some of its portions. Its geo strategic importance is lies within its potential as
a trade route as well as in the sizable amounts of undiscovered oil and gas in the
region. As a result of the increasing competition for the dominance over the
region, Russia, Canada and Denmark began engaging in more aggressive tactics to
establish influence in the Arctic by illegitimately stepping up on its military
presence in the region. Not only does it impose on the rights of the indigenous
peoples inhabiting the Polar Circle, this increase in military activity and scramble
for resources could destabilize the situation in the region.
II.
POSITION OF THE USA
The USA has been tentatively increasing its focus on the Arctic region, with Navy
training andsurveillance initiatives around the Arctic region gaining momentum in
the last decade. The USA believes that the question of militarisation of the Arctic
should be addressed within the mechanism of the Arctic Council, of which it is a
member. The USA disapproves of Russias self-approved intensified patrolling and
military presence in the region and sees Canada as its ally in strategic cooperation
with Canada to conduct joint operations to secure the waters and aerospace in
the Arctic region. In May 2013 Barack Obama announced his neutrality towards
Canadas opposition to potential newcomers in the Arctic Council (such as China).
The Obama administrations Arctic Strategy announced in 2013 includes the
following points as top priorities: 1) Safeguarding of national security in the
northern frontiers 2) Developing oil, gas and other natural resources 3)Protecting
the environment of the region 4) Defending rights and interests of the indigenous
peoplesin Alaska. Additionally the USA confirms its current position that the Law
of the Sea Convention, theInternational Maritime Organisation and the Arctic
Council form the core of the regime thatlegitimately governs the Arctic and
determines the policies in the region.
III.

PROPOSALS
A)

The USA proposes creation of a comprehensive Arctic Treaty in order to construct

a legalframework to define the scope and extent of the regional governance for
the Arctic, including themilitary actions in the region, in particular such questions
as policing, surveying and sustainableadministrating the Arctic and managing its
natural resources. The interests of the local indigenous population should be
taken into account by giving them advisory role in any of the
governancemechanisms in the Arctic, as it is not just a region of strategic
importance, but also a homeland totens of thousands of people.B)

To prevent further militarization of the region, the US proposes creation of arms

limitationagreement for the region, establishment of an extensive cooperative
surveillance system thatwould minimise national security risks to the states
located around the Arctic region. Particular focus must be made on complete
prohibition of any nuclear weapons, as well as curbing threats of arms and drugs
trafficking in the area
NATO has stated its intention not to militarize the Arctic. Moreover, China and
Japan would also like to participate if the legal regime governing development of
the High North changes. Different states interests in the Arctic and their
understanding of the shelf boundaries often collide. Political coalitions, both
multilateral and bilateral, may therefore emerge in the future.
NATO members need to deal with the foreign and security policy aspects of
developments concerning the Arctic Ocean. The area is affected by climate
change. The debate on the significance of these developments is no longer
confined to environmental aspects, indigenous peoples and the importance of
biodiversity. Potential for economic activity in the region is now also a particularly
important factor. Exploitation of the region is of great economic and political
significance to a number of Arctic states, and more attention is being paid to
security aspects. The current satisfactory cooperation in the region may come
under pressure. Developments round the Arctic Ocean may yield opportunities
for the Netherlands, but may also harm Dutch interests.
The crisis following the annexation of the Crimea and Russias involvement in
eastern Ukraine have created uncertainty as to how relations between Russia and
Western countries will develop. This has already had implications for the Arctic
region, since Arctic oil exploration is covered by the European sanctions
announced in late July 2014, initially for one year. Oil projects in the region are
affected. The sanctions apply to new contracts. On 8 September 2014 the EU
agreed on an additional package of sanctions. Should Russia decide to distance
itself even further from the West, this is bound to affect cooperation in the Arctic,
and especially the Arctic Council. The constructive cooperation that has prevailed
up to now could then give way to relations reminiscent of the Cold War.
4
If the icecaps continue to melt as now predicted, the Arctic region will in any case
be faced with a number of issues that may increase tension: territorial claims,
rights of access to shipping routes, ownership of raw materials, fishing grounds,
the position of indigenous peoples, and ecological disasters. At the same time,
there is considerable uncertainty about future developments in the Arctic. For
instance, (1) the extent to which oil and gas reserves can be exploited, and the
extent to which NATO can interfere in the region.(2) the extent to which trans-
Arctic shipping routes will be navigable, and which products they will be suitable
for. Another key issue is the position of the indigenous peoples that have lived in
the region for thousands of years.

Moreover, the region is not surrounded by any kind of political instability that is
present in many contemporary oil-supplying countries, so it is not inclinable to
create international crises with an unexpected rise of oil prices. Developing oil
deposits in the Arctic Is strategically important because, even if there are matters
of territorial delimitation, the region is not beset by religious, ethnic or social
stifle and resource-nationalism that are present in the oil-producing countries in
the Middle East, West Africa and Latin America. Therefore making arctic a new
pole of energy source, and which ever country possess these sources will be at a
very high advantage. However identifying the fact that it will be extremely costly
to build infrastructure and exploit tapped resources, we still see Russia
developing its vast Shkotman natural gas fields, Norway has plans to start tapping
gas from its offshore in Snoehvit, Canada is investing in the development of high
technology drilling and other countries and companies are already revealing their
interest in profiting from those resources.
Other than the mineral exploration, there are more aspects to the economic
benefits reaped from this region. The fishing and tourism industry are two players
in the economic benefits which come with the arctic. Currently 10% of all exports
from arctic are in fisheries. With the melting ice caps, soon it will be open to
tourism, and as a place never visited before by many, it will or can be a popular
tourist region. However obviously the weather conditions of the Arctic will be one
massive obstacle in the progress of the tourism industry.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Currently, UNCLOS is the only aspect of global legislationregarding the rights and
obligations states have in respect toworld seas and oceans. There are five
different zones, eachcontaining an official regime.
The territorial sea is the first zone, including s
tates borderingthe sea or ocean (referencing article 3), stretching
atapproximately 12 nautical miles from the baselines of theshore. In this
particular territory, the state can implement full jurisdiction, but the convention
allows theright of innocent passage (article 17) for both governmental and non-
governmental ships under certainrestriction. Ships involving some sort of nuclear
background are allowed in this area, but with properdocumentation. The passage
is defined (according to Article 19) as
navigation through the territorial
sea for the purpose of:(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other
manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied inthe Charter
of the United Nations;(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;(c)
any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security
of the coastalState;(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or
security of the coastal State;(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any
aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;(g) the loading
or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs,
fiscal,immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State(h) any act
of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;(i) any fishing
activities(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities(k) any act aimed at
interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or
installationsof the coastal State;(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing
on passage.
The contiguous zone, contains a width of
approximately 24 nautical miles from baselines. Inside this area, the state can
implement control
needed to prevent infri
ngement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulationswithin
its territory or territorial sea; punish infringement of the above laws and
regulations committedwithin its
territory or territorial sea. The exclusive economic zone can stretch up to 200
nautical miles
from the baselines. It has rights in regard to natural resources; it is free to create
the manner in which itwill manage the resources, however other states must have
consent in order to exploit these resources.The state is also allowed jurisdiction
over artificial islands, installations, and structures relating toresearch.
The continental shelf is the seabed and submarine
part, extending beyond the territorial seato the edge of the continental margin.
The states have the right to explore and exploit natural resources,including
mineral and non-living resources.
The final area is known as the high seas, which are open to
all states. The rights under the high seasin Article 87 include:(a) freedom of
navigation;(b) freedom of overflight;(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and
pipelines, subject to Part VI;(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other
installations permitted underinternational law, subject to Part VI;(e) freedom of
fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;(f ) freedom of scientific
research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.