http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee 302 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies Núm. 10 / 2017 “The oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the commons. Maritime nations still respond automatically to the shibboleth of the ‘freedom of the seas.’ Professing to believe in the ‘inexhaustible resources of the oceans’, they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to extinction”121. This is something that appears to have been understood when drafting the UNCLOS and the reason why it is permitted to extend the continental shelf. In any event, it was clearly understood by the A-5: when cooperation is impossible and over-exploitation is a real threat, all States have something to gain from a special type of cooperation: the creation of a boundary that delimits territories and ensures access to resources. And, as we shall see, this does not mean that disputes will lead to conflict and that there are precedents for peaceful dispute settlement in the Arctic region. Let us begin with a success story. Although Russia was the first country to submit a claim to the CLCS in 2001, Norway was the first to obtain a positive response. Norway submitted its claim in 2006 and its right to an area comprising 235,000 square kilometres was recognised in a favourable report.122 According to Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, the recommendation sets a precedent, because it establishes “A precondition for future resource management, creates a firmer basis for investments and is an effective implementation in the High North of the legal order for the oceans set out in the law of the Sea Convention”123. The case of the United States is perhaps the must peculiar of all the A-5. It is the only country in the A-5 that has not signed the UNCLOS and is therefore not able to submit claims to the CLCS. However, it is working closely with Canada to compile scientific data, given that “It’s in the U.S. national interest to collect accurate and precise data on the outer limits of its continental shelf in preparation for an eventual submission to the Commission.” 124 In the meantime, it bases its sovereignty claims to the Arctic on custom maritime law. The logical question, therefore, is to what extent the U.S. can continue to submit claims before it eventually signs the UNCLOS. In this regard, Conde believes that: “the UNCLOS raises so many uncertainties that it is not known whether the Extended Continental Shelf comes under the purview of maritime law. What is true is that maritime law provides that States have a right to a Continental Shelf of 200 nautical miles and that they have exclusive sovereign rights over this shelf. However, 121 HARDIN, op. cit, p.4. 122 DODDS, op. cit, p.67. 123 NORWEGIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Extent of Norway’s continental shelf in the High North clarified, 2009, Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/shelf_clarified/id554718/ (Accessed on 13-01-2016). 124 HOLE, Woods “Law of the sea – Outer Limits of the US Continental Margins”, United States, Geological Survey, 2008, p.1.
REVISTA_IEEE_10
To see the actual publication please follow the link above