Professor Wolfrum, until now marine research has enjoyed the freedom guaranteed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. To what extent could coastal states exert more influence in the future as a result of their rights of sovereignty?
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees freedom of marine research in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf when basic research is involved. Should there be a division of the Arctic continental shelf among the riparian states, then continental shelf jurisdiction will apply. Research will then require permission from the relevant coastal state. If basic research were involved, in principle permission would have to be granted. However, such a move would extend the coastal states’ influence very considerably and restrict the freedom that has benefited German scientists in the past. One solution would be bilateral agreements on research cooperation.
Rapid technological progress is being made in science. Is the existing legal framework becoming too narrow for modern research with satellites, probes and diving robots?
The existing rules are actually flexible enough to make the deployment of modern methods and instruments unproblematic. Any attempt to regulate this matter internationally involves the danger of new rules leading to additional restrictions on research.
In their declarations, the Arctic Five – Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States – emphasize their willingness to engage in international cooperation and in the peaceful resolution of disputes. However, can conflicts be solved at all without institutional frameworks?
The Arctic Five emphasize that the Convention on the Law of the Sea should apply to the Arctic. In doing so, they are emphasizing something that should be seen as a matter of course. The Convention on the Law of the Sea relies on intergovernmental cooperation. In principle, the rules for resolving disputes laid down in the Convention on the Law of the Sea apply universally. However, it must be pointed out that only some of the five riparian states have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and that the USA only accepts the Convention on the Law of the Sea to the extent that it reflects customary international law. Nevertheless, even if the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg or the International Court of Justice in The Hague were not generally responsible, the general principle of international law holds true that disputes should be settled by peaceful means. In that respect, an institutional strengthening of the Arctic regime – for example, along the lines of the Antarctic model – would not open up additional opportunities, apart perhaps from the fact that disputes could be identified and resolved early on within such a framework.
The Arctic Council has become the most important forum for international cooperation in the region. To what extent would greater participation be conceivable and desirable from non-Arctic players, such as the European Union, which has applied for permanent observer status?
The future economic development of the Arctic region has ecological impacts that reach far beyond the region itself. They will possibly have a lasting influence on the world’s climate as a whole. For that reason, participation by additional countries is imperative. Whether the participation of the European Union is necessary or at least desirable depends on where you see the central focus of non-Arctic interest – in the use of resources or in environmental protection.////
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Rüdiger Wolfrum
works at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg and is a judge at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg
