Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations ◆ Seventh Annual Session
Forum:
The Arctic Council
Issue:
Resolving potential conflicts over maritime boundaries in the
Arctic Ocean
Student Officer: Christine Qian
Position:
Chair
Introduction
Much of today’s territories were decided by bloody conflict. A notable example would be
the formation of the United States of America, residing in what used to be the domain of various
Native American tribes. Historically, territories were gained by conquest or barter. This path of
expansion is no longer viable for the politics and morals of today. A chief struggle of the modern
era with territory distribution is the example of territorial disputes in the Arctic Ocean. Maritime
borders themselves already are shakily defined, but the Arctic Ocean is not only a maritime
area, but also not clearly under the domain of any one country. Thus, it is vitally important for
the Arctic Council to discuss the issue of maritime boundaries in the Arctic Ocean.
Definition of Key Terms
Maritime
Connected with the sea, especially in relation to seaborne trade or naval matters.
Arctic Ocean
Also known as the Arctic Sea, the Arctic Ocean is the smallest and shallowest of the 5
major Oceans. It covers an area of approximately 14,056,000 km2. It is surrounded by Eurasia,
North America, and Greenland. It possesses several islands.
Territorial waters
A term which denotes an area of coastal water extending 12 nautical miles (22.2 km)
from a country’s land-to-sea boundary.
Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations ◆ Seventh Annual Session
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)
EEZs extend from the edge of Territorial waters to up to 200 nautical miles (370 km)
from the baseline. An EEZ implies that the sovereign nation has full rights over any natural
resources within the area.
International waters
International waters do not belong to any state, and all states are free to travel through
them. Any international criminal may be pursued by any country in this zone.
History
Definition of standards
The United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) set forth a group
of standards in 1982. Beforehand, maritime boundaries were rather arbitrary and decided by
each sovereign state to their own preference. UNCLOS III commenced in 1973, and required 9
years to draft up their long-standing rules.
Appeal of the Arctic Ocean
The Arctic Ocean spans an area of rich natural resources. Previously, the
resources located within the Arctic Ocean were inaccessible due to high sea ice levels
and inadequate technology. However, due to technological innovations and the gradual
melting of they Arctic sea ice, states can now access these resources with relative
ease. Another appeal (mostly for the littoral states) is the possibility of travel in the area.
Legal transportation in this area would negate the need to travel through other channels
(Panama canal, Bering strait, etc.)
New need for resources
The issue of the Arctic Ocean has come to the forefront recently because of
contextual environmental issues. Natural resources were once abundant, but now with a
dearth of easily accessible petroleum and open seas, the Arctic Ocean has become
more feasible to exploit. Globally, industrialization has also reduced the effort needed to
exploit the Arctic Ocean, also making it more appealing.
Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations ◆ Seventh Annual Session
Key Issues
Contradiction with current standards
Assigning sovereignty of any area of the Arctic Ocean to any nation is a violation of the
standards set by UNCLOS III. International waters (of which category the majority of the Arctic
Ocean falls under) are open lanes to any nation, and free from singular exploitation. The desire
of certain nations to exploit the Arctic Ocean must contradict current maritime law – either
disobeying it completely or pushing to change them.
The unfair position of littoral states
Many non-littoral states (such as China, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland) have a vested
interest in the Arctic Ocean, yet as non-littoral states, do not have a strong argument for
exploiting its resources. Furthermore, littoral states request larger portions of the Arctic Ocean
simply because of their favorable position.
Major Parties Involved and Their Views
Littoral states
USA (Alaska)
The United States of America is one of the only remaining states that has not
ratified the Law of the Sea. Their interest within the Arctic Ocean is primarily commercialist: they
aim to possess as much area as possible to maximize exploitation of resources.
Canada
Canada, although a vast landmass, does not possess a plethora of natural
resources. Thus, their favorable position near the resource-rich Arctic Ocean is something they
are eager to capitalize upon.
Russia
Today’s Russia continues to emulate the values of the USSR in regards to their
Arctic plans. Although Russia is highly interested in the resources available in the Arctic Ocean,
Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations ◆ Seventh Annual Session
it is also invested in the possibility of transportation across the Arctic, so as to eliminate the
need for maritime/aerial travel across other regions.
Denmark (Greenland)
The site of the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, Denmark possesses a great need for
natural resources. With a struggling economy, Denmark may not be as powerful as the USA or
Russia, but possesses equal claim to the Arctic Circle area.
Norway
Like Denmark, Norway is not an economic giant like the USA or China. However,
its location halfway within the Arctic Circle gains it a foothold in the argument for sovereignty in
the Arctic Ocean.
A visual representation of the five littoral states
Non-littoral states with a vested interest
The People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations ◆ Seventh Annual Session
As the second-largest economy, China obviously has a stake in the resources of
the Arctic Ocean. As they are also economic allies with Russia, they support Russia’s travel in
the area.
Organizations
UNCLOS
UNCLOS, an organ of the UN, has a vested interest in this issue. UNCLOS III
created the standards used today in maritime law, and this issue is contentious towards the
existing laws.
Timeline of Relevant Resolutions, Treaties and Events
You must include short sentences to explain the timeline. Otherwise you have to follow
the format specified below:
Date
Description of event
1973
UNCLOS III is convened in New York
1982
UNCLOS III closed after 9 years of discussion
2008
Ilulissat Declaration signed in Ilulissat, Greenland
Evaluation of Previous Attempts to Resolve the Issue
The five littoral states has often clashed over territorial disputes in the Arctic Ocean. The
USA and Canada disagree over the oil-rich Beaufort Sea. Canada and Denmark disagree over
Hans Island and Ellesmere Island. The Svalbard archipelago, under the control of Norway, is
also fought over by the remaining littoral states. None of these disputes produced definitive
results.
Possible Solutions
Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations ◆ Seventh Annual Session
There are two main courses of action if any nations wish to possess sovereignty in the
area; either to break current UNCLOS standards, or to change them. This should be addressed
by delegates.
Bibliography
"V.I.39 THE ILULISSAT DECLARATION ON THE ARCTIC OCEAN (28 May 2008)."
International Law & World Order: Weston's & Carlson's Basic Documents (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 9
Nov. 2015.
Macalister, Terry. "Rush for Arctic's Resources Provokes Territorial Tussles." The
Guardian. The Guardian, 6 July 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.
Wanucha, Genevieve. "The Cold Hard Truth about Arctic Policy: Interview with
Lawrence Susskind." Oceans At MIT. MIT, 13 June 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.