Øystein Jensen

The politics of security and international law in Norway's Arctic waters

Security policy challenges in the high north should be approached both as an insight into the international legal framework on which co-existence in the region rests and as a sober realpolitik analysis. Against this background, the objective of this article is to paint a more balanced picture of security policy options in Norways Arctic waters, rather than observing contemporary general discourse on the topic might suggest. Management of marine resources, delimitation of unresolved maritime boundaries and relations with Russia in the northern maritime areas are used as examples to substantiate our main thesis which is that dispassionate diplomacy is more likely to resolve disputes than is military confrontation.

Current Legal Developments The Barents Sea

On 15 September 2010, Norway and the Russian Federation signed the Treaty Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean (hereinafter the Treaty). 1 The Treaty applies to Norway‟s and Russia‟s respective exclusive economic zones (in addition to the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard) and the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles. This note puts the Treaty into context, and discusses its key features, as it pertains to delimiting the maritime boundary between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: An Administrative, Scientific, or Judicial Institution?

This article analyses the characteristics of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as an international decision-making institution in the process of establishing the seaward limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines of the territorial sea under Article 76 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Commission may be compared to scientific bodies established to give advice relating to the implementation of treaty provisions. However, in the exercise of its functions, the Commission also performs legal-administrative tasks, and its recommendations to individual coastal states entail significant legal effects; for instance, as a means of interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Commissions functions and competencies must be taken into account in classifying and understanding this unique international institution.

Russia's Revised Arctic Seabed Submission

ABSTRACT This article identifies the key aspects of the Partial Revised Submission of the Russian Federation with respect to continental shelf areas beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean. It focusses on pro- cedural and substantive legal issues, including how seafloor highs were legally classified and how Russia used referenced “sector lines” to determine the outer limits of its shelf.

Compulsory and Binding Dispute Resolution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Introduction

To ensure the implementation of the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), as well as to ensure that disputes about its interpretation or application are resolved through peaceful means, a comprehensive dispute resolution system was included in Part XV in the LOSC. Part XV consists of three main sections, as well as supplementary annexes addressing the various dispute resolution bodies referenced in the LOSC. This extensive set of rules collectively makes up the dispute settlement machinery within the LOSC and is one central pillars of the Treaty. A vast majority of the world’s states have ratified the LOSC. Adjudicative third-party dispute settlement under the LOSC has increased in number and subject-matter diversity. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has dealt, for example, with claims for damages arising out of the alleged unlawful arrest of vessels; requests for the release of detained vessels; maritime boundary delimitation; illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; and issues concerning responsibilities and liabilities of states with respect to deep seabed mining. The collective case law, including several awards rendered by arbitral tribunals under Annex VII of the LOSC, has contributed markedly to the clarification of Part XV of LOSC. On 21–22 September 2016, the K. G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea at UiT The Arctic University of Norway in Tromsø, Norway, arranged a two-day workshop on dispute settlement in the law of the sea. The workshop focused on those provisions in the LOSC dealing with compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. The purposes of the workshop were to assess the experience gained so far with the compulsory dispute resolution provisions of the LOSC in international litigation, and to provide an assessment of whether these provisions have worked as intended by the treaty drafters and of the extent to which unanticipated issues have arisen. This special issue of Ocean Development & International Law consists of the research articles developed on the basis of the papers that were presented and discussed in plenary session at the Tromsø workshop.

Maritime Boundary Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The International Judiciary and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

This article examines the legal significance of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in third-party dispute settlement regarding delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines. Recent international jurisprudence indicates that the relationship between the procedures of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea involving the Commission and third-party dispute settlement is marked by lack of clarity, bringing procedural and substantive legal challenges in the view of the international judiciary. The procedures involving the Commission may influence a dispute settlement body’s decision to exercise its jurisdiction to delimit continental shelf areas beyond 200 nautical miles. Also in terms of continental shelf entitlement—determining what is legally a “continental shelf” and what is not—the Commission plays a crucial role.