Figure 7. Source: MOE, Arild, et al., “Space and Timing: Why was the Barents Sea Delimitation Dispute Resolved in 2010?” Polar Geography, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2011. http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee 305 David López Morales Terrae ultima thule: Cooperation in the Artic region Russian Duma has not yet ratified the treaty, experts are of the opinion that this would not pose a problem134. However, the biggest problem for the settlement of disputes with the U.S. is that it is not a party to the UNCLOS. Despite this, when questioned about the issue, Professor Conde believes that: “the only obstacle that the U.S. might encounter is that it would not be able to submit its delimitation to the CLCS. However, given that Article 76 of the UNCLOS is particularly confusing and complex, there is nothing preventing it from reaching agreements with neighbouring States for the resolution of overlaps in continental shelves”135. In relation to the dispute in the Barents Sea, in 2010, shortly after the CLCS recognised Norway’s sovereignty claim, Russia and Norway signed a bilateral agreement. The agreement defined the countries’ boundaries and it was agreed that the disputed area would be managed by an authority appointed by the two parties. Furthermore, it was agreed that any resources extracted in the future would be shared in equal parts between the parties136 (as can be seen from the map in figure 7. Delimitation of the disputed area in the Barents Sea). Therefore, this demonstrates that the A-5 are committed to settling disputes in a peaceful manner in order to ensure peace and security in the region. Delimitation of the disputed area in the Barents Sea. 134 Extract from the interview with Professor Timo Koivurova, op cit. 135 Extract from the interview with Professor Elena Conde, op. cit. 136 MOE, Arild, et al., “Space and Timing: Why was the Barents Sea Delimitation Dispute Resolved in 2010?” Polar Geography, Vol.34, No.3, 2011.
REVISTA_IEEE_10
To see the actual publication please follow the link above