Norway, Denmark (In Respect of Greenland) and Iceland

Home , Kong Karls Land, Prins Karls Forland

CHAPTER 8 Norway, Denmark (in respect of Greenland) and Iceland

Tore Henriksen

1 Introduction

The challenges to Arctic shipping extend beyond the Central Arctic Ocean. The Polar Code1 is applicable to Arctic waters,2 which extend to the northern parts of the Barents Sea, the Greenland Sea and the North Atlantic. The geographi- cal proximity of the three Nordic coastal States to these waters—Denmark (in respect of Greenland), Norway and Iceland—obviously makes them relevant actors in the governance of Arctic shipping. The statistics provided by the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) report commissioned by the Arctic Council suggest that the major volume in present Arctic maritime traf- fic is in the periphery of the Arctic, along the Norwegian coast, in the Barents Sea northwest of Russia, around Iceland, near the Faroe Islands, southwest Greenland and in the Bering Strait.3 The three States have different roles in

1 International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code), consolidated text of the Polar Code as set out in the annexes to resolutions MSC.385(94) and MEPC.264(68), accessed 17 March 2017 at http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/polar/Pages/default.aspx. 2 Arctic waters are defined in SOLAS 74 (Regulation XIV-1.3) and MARPOL 73/78 (Annex I Regulation 46.2, Annex II Regulation 21.2, Annex IV Regulation 17.3 and Annex V Regulation 13.2.), which makes the Polar Code mandatory in “those waters which are located north of a line from the latitude 58º00΄.0 N and longitude 042º00΄.0 W to latitude 64º37΄.0 N, longitude 035º27΄.0 W and thence by a rhumb line to latitude 67º03΄.9 N, longitude 026º33΄.4 W and thence by a rhumb line to the latitude 70º49΄.56 N and longitude 008º59΄.61 W (Sørkapp, Jan Mayen) and by the southern shore of Jan Mayen to 73º31’.6 N and 019º01’.0 E by the Island of Bjørnøya, and thence by a great circle line to the latitude 68º38΄.29 N and longitude 043º23΄.08 E (Cap Kanin Nos) and hence by the northern shore of the Asian Continent eastward to the Bering Strait and thence from the Bering Strait westward to latitude 60º N as far as Il’pyrskiy and following the 60th North parallel eastward as far as and including Etolin Strait and thence by the northern shore of the North American continent as far south as latitude 60º N and thence eastward along parallel of latitude 60º N, to longitude 056º37΄.1 W and thence to the latitude 58º00΄.0 N, longitude 042º00΄.0 W”. 3 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report. Arctic Council, April 2009, second printing (AMSA Report), at 73.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��7 | doi ��.��63/9789004339385_009 246 henriksen the governance as coastal States, flag States and Arctic States. Their interests span from ensuring the protection of the fragile Arctic marine environment to promoting economic development of their northern regions through tourism, shipping and fishing. The objective of this Chapter is to investigate their interests and policies in Arctic shipping governance and how these interests and policies are re- flected in their national legislation. Two main questions are addressed: the first is whether the three States have a common interest in the governance of Arctic shipping. Specifically, are they arguing for having international regulations apply to all navigation in Arctic waters or are they satisfied if the national regulations of the Arctic coastal States are applied in a non-discriminatory manner? The investigation will be based on their positions on the Polar Code, the legislation of Canada and the Russian Federation, as well as on the initia- tives taken through the Arctic Council. The legislation of Canada and Russia is based on the extended environmental jurisdiction provided under Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)4 to coastal States. Is it relevant for any of the three States to adopt national legislation under the authority of Article 234 of UNCLOS? The second main question is whether their national legislation is consistent with international law as set out in UNCLOS and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) conven- tions. Have any of the States adopted legislation enabling them to apply Article 234 of UNCLOS? Will their legislation be consistent with the Polar Code? Before these questions are addressed in sections 2 and 3, some background information and data about the three States is set out below. Norway is located in Northern Europe. It has an area of approximately 385,000 square kilometres (km²) and a population of 5.2 million.5 This includes Jan Mayen and the archipelago of Svalbard. Its coastline faces the Arctic waters. Jan Mayen is an island of 377 km² in the North Atlantic, 550 kilometres (km) northeast of Iceland and 500 km east of Greenland. The island has no perma- nent population. It formally became a part of the Kingdom of Norway in 1930.6 The archipelago of Svalbard consists of Bjørnøya, Spitsbergen, Nordaustlandet, Barentsøya, Edgeøya, Kong Karls Land, Hopen, Prins Karls Forland, Kvitøya and other islands, islets and rocks. The islands cover a total area of 61,020 km². The

4 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 3. 5 Minifacts about Norway, accessed 17 March 2017 at https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/ artikler-og-publikasjoner/minifacts-about-norway. 6 Lov av 27.2.1930 nr.2 om Jan Mayen (the Jan Mayen Act), accessed 17 March 2017 at www .lovdata.no [in Norwegian].