Prof. Dr. Alexander Vylegzhanin
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (Russian Federation)

1. Preventing new interstate disputes relevant to future economic activities in the Arctic Ocean is an important issue.

2. Some general suggestions for the discourse on how International Law can be interpreted and applied to the Arctic Ocean are:

Not to oversimplify the International Law applicable to the Arctic Ocean: it’s not expressed only in the UNCLOS 1982.

Respect for the International Customary Law applicable to the Arctic as formed before and after the adoption of UNCLOS 1982. In this context the important legal factors to be taken into account are

- legislative and treaty practice of Tsarist Russia, of the USSR and of the Russian Federation ;

- legislative and treaty practice of Canada;

- tacit agreement (absence of expressed protests) in 15-20 centuries on the part of the majority of the world states to Russian and Canadian Arctic Policy and Legislation.

Respect for the position of the US Senate not to participate in the UNCLOS 1982.

3. In order to bridge Legal Views on International Governance Framework for the High Seas in the Central Arctic it is advisable:

To reach consensus as to Legal Qualifications of ice and water arctic areas beyond 200-miles from the baselines

- as the High Seas,

- as not the High Seas (“Canada has occasionally expressed doubt as to the status of the Arctic Ocean as high seas, particularly the Beaufort Sea” – Legal Status of the Arctic Regions, D. Pharand, 1979. The legal view of V. Lachtin, E. Korovin, other soviet authors – there is “no high sea areas in the Arctic Ocean”).

To take use of the best environmental standards and the environmentally and economically best technologies in regulating future economic activity in the Arctic High Seas in order to protect Arctic Environment.

To provide concept of Legal Framework for Management of Living Resources in the Arctic High Seas.

4. The legal positions as expressed by different branches of power of the five arctic coastal states and by different specialists in international law demonstrate different assessments of the status of the Arctic Ocean bed beyond 200-miles from the baselines:

- As continental shelf to be delimited between such states according to art. 6 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958 (in relation to USA) or according to art. 83 of UNCLOS 1982 (in relations between other four arctic coastal states). Or

- As continental shelf to be delimited between such states plus the Area to be delineated according to art. 76 of the UNCLOS 1982. Or

- As legal dichotomy – A) for states parties to UNCLOS 1982 - As continental shelf to be delimited between the arctic coastal states plus the Area to be delineated; and B) for USA and other states non-parties to the UNCLOS 1982 - the bed of the high seas (Convention on the High Seas, 1958).

Conclusion: Realistic, comprehensive, accurate and cautious doctrinal assessments and legal advise relevant to the Arctic Legal Environment are needed.