Welcome to Francis Academic Press

International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 2023, 5(5); doi: 10.25236/IJFS.2023.050520.

Analysis of the dispute over the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean

Author(s)

Hang Yu, Junting Hao

Corresponding Author:
Hang Yu
Affiliation(s)

School of Law, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China

Abstract

In the 1960s, the Arctic glaciers gradually melted, while the rich mineral and fishery resources in the region triggered a new strategic layout design for the countries around the Arctic Ocean, and countries have started to fight for the rights and interests related to the outer continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As of 2023, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark have applied to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for delineation of the continental shelf, while the U.S. is also striving for the rights and interests of related resources by virtue of its geographical location. At present, in the case of the uncertainty of the delimitation of the outer continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean by the United Nations, the governance guidelines of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the outer continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean are relatively in line with the interests of all countries, but there are also certain practical problems, and the United States and non-Arctic countries are bound to join the competition for the relevant rights and interests, and it is difficult to avoid the relevant situation. In this regard, through improving the working mechanism of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and formulating the Arctic Treaty, we can gradually realize the governance of the outer continental shelf in the central waters of the Arctic Ocean and maintain the healthy and benign resource circulation and utilization of the relevant sea areas.

Keywords

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; Arctic Ocean; Outer continental shelf; Delimitation

Cite This Paper

Hang Yu, Junting Hao. Analysis of the dispute over the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2023), Vol. 5, Issue 5: 117-120. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2023.050520.

References

[1] Institute of Marine Development Strategy. State Oceanic Administration. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [M]. Beijing: Ocean Press, 2014.

[2] Liu Huirong, Zhang Zhijun. The new situation of continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles in the central waters of the Arctic Ocean and China's response [J]. Journal of Anhui University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 2022, 46(05):79-87.

[3] Zhang Cheng. A review of the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic region under the threshold of international law [J]. Hebei Jurisprudence, 2018, 36(08):64-74.

[4] Yin Jie, Li Jiabiao, Fang Yinxia. A comparative analysis of continental shelf delimitation claims beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean [J]. Polar Research, 2020, 32(04):533-543

[5] Kuang Zengjun, Russia's Arctic Strategy, Beijing: Social Science Literature Press, 2017.

[6] Fang Yinxia, Yin Jie. Progress of work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the new situation of global outer continental shelf delimitation [J]. International Law Studies, 2020 (06): 61-69.

[7] Zhang Cheng, Gu Xingbin. The delimitation of the outer continental shelf of Arctic waters under the threshold of international law [J]. International Forum, 2013, 15(04):45-50.

[8] Zhang Cheng. The situation of delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic region and its legal issues [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 2018, 26(06):45-55.

[9] Hu Bian. Analysis of the Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Dispute and its Settlement Mechanism [D]. Foreign Affairs Institute, 2013, pp. 2-3.