19 May Russia v. Canada: Power and Interests Confront International Law
Russia continues to keep the pressure on Canada in the race to claim rights over the seabed underneath the Arctic Sea.
THE battle for “ownership” of polar oil reserves has intensified with Russia sending a fleet of nuclear-powered ice-breakers into the Arctic. It has reinforced fears that Moscow intends to unlawfully annex a vast portion of the ice-covered Arctic. Scientists believe up to 10 billion tonnes of gas and oil could lie under the region.
In response, Canada is going to spend $C40 Million to build a fleet of patrol boats. That doesn’t sound very threatening, but the normally laid-back Canadians seem pretty juiced up about their rights in the Arctic. Or are they?
There is a widely accepted international legal regime to which both Canada and Russia belong — the Convention on the Law of the Sea — that should resolve this dispute. But what if there really is 10 billion tons of oil and natural gas at stake? Will Russia or even law-abiding Canada be able to stick to that regime. An interesting test of the pull of law versus interests…
There may be a crisis in the Arctic, but this isn’t it The source for the article you refer to (originally the Telegraph in the UK) employs a bit of hype to give the appearance of impending conflict. The Russian fleet of icebreakers is not a response to melting Arctic ice or claims to the seabed. It has been in place for years because of the importance of the northern ports along the Northern Sea Route that connect the Pacific to the Atlantic. The build-up of Canadian patrol boats might be attributed more to the impending opening of the North West Passage and the need to impress upon potential users, the United States among them, that their position that the NW Passage is internal waters and a recognition that whatever status is eventually accorded to the Passage, Canada will bear responsibility for enforcing navigation, fishing and environmental protection law and regulations within its northern territories. In fact, the Law of the Sea Convention is doing just what it was intended to do. It provides an avenue by which coastal states may extend authority over offshore seabed resources, it provides defined regions of national authority over fish stocks and, through the… Read more »