CANADIAN POLAR COMMISSION IN THIS ISSUE THE LAW OF THE SEA AND MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH The Law of the Sea and Marine Scientific IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN Research in the Arctic Ocean 1 Ron Macnab, Olav Loken and Arvind Anand FALL/WINTER 2007 Contemporary events and circumstances, ration with other states, and by driving the Global Warming: Arctic Shipping 6 such as melting ice, the International Polar need to define maritime boundaries, these Year, and the UN Convention on the Law of developments touch upon Canada’s interests PEARL – A Canadian Success Story 11 the Sea are providing an unprecedented at the national and international levels. boost to Marine Scientific Research in the Melting ice is facilitating access to ex- The Centre d’études nordiques and central Arctic Ocean. This felicitous situa- panded oceanic regions that historically have the Qaujisarvik Network 15 tion could be short-lived, however, as Arctic remained inaccessible to scientific research coastal states apply the provisions of the on account of their widespread and persis- Social Housing North 17 Law of the Sea to extend their sovereign tent ice cover. The IPY, meanwhile, is mobi- rights beyond 200 nautical miles, enhanc- lizing legions of investigators for an inten- Oral History in Nunavut: ing their entitlement to regulate a range of sive two-year campaign of data gathering An Overview of its Past and scientific activities. This is in marked con- and analysis across a broad range of disci- Present Vitality 20 trast to the Antarctic regime, where freedom plines. Finally, UNCLOS has prompted all five of research is protected under the terms of coastal states that front upon the Arctic Book Review: the Antarctic Treaty. The principles enunci- Ocean (Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Rus- Essential Song – Three Decades of ated by this Treaty are worth considering, sian Federation, and the USA*) to initiate Northern Cree Music 24 as they could inspire a less restrictive national programs for seafloor mapping and approach towards scientific investigation research in support of claims to the extended New Books 26 in the central Arctic Ocean. continental shelf (ECS) beyond 200 nautical miles. Horizon 26 INTRODUCTION Taken together, these developments Marine scientific research (MSR) may be have spurred an unprecedented increase in defined as the ensemble of observations and research activity in the Arctic Ocean, with investigations that seek to understand the many projects assuming the character of nature of the ocean environment and of the international partnerships. Motivated by the processes that occur within it. Three con- desire to maintain a productive momentum, temporary developments are having a sig- investigators are seeking ways to channel nificant impact on MSR in the Arctic Ocean: melting ice, the International Polar Year (IPY), and the UN Convention on the Law of * While the USA has yet to ratify UNCLOS, federal agencies in that country are engaged in a comprehensive mapping the Sea (UNCLOS). By forcing an adaptation program to collect the necessary data for developing an to changing climate, by promoting collabo- extended continental shelf. Maritime Zones IW Internal Waters TSB Territorial Sea Baseline TS Territorial Sea CS Continental Shelf CZ Contiguous Zone A The Area EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone A76 Article 76 Limit IW HS High Seas TS CZ EEZ HS TSB CS A 0 m 12 m 24 m 200 m A76 Figure 1 the current round of activity into a longer- its predominant focus on the land area of Coastal state sovereign rights in maritime zones. This lasting program that will outlive the circum- Antarctica and on the abeyance of all terri- diagram illustrates the seaward extents and overlaps of stances which led to its inception. While torial claims, the ATS and its provisions are the maritime zones where a coastal state may exercise a there is no shortage of scientific objectives clearly not totally applicable to the Arctic range of sovereign rights and authorities. In general that are worthy of ongoing and in some situation. However, many of its principles terms,the scope of those rights and authorities cases urgent attention on a cooperative basis, could serve as useful guideposts in the de- (including the regulation of Marine Scientific Research) diminishes with distance from the coastline. Conversely,a the continuation of a broad-based undertak- velopment of a similar framework for coop- state that proposes to operate within another’s maritime ing for multilateral international research erative scientific investigation in the North. zones must relinquish certain rights as it penetrates will likely require intervention and support This note outlines some of the key further into those zones. at the political level. research provisions in the ATS. It also con- siders how international law in the guise of LOOKING AT THE UNCLOS could promote the rationalization of that area. LONGER TERM research policies and programs to maximize The Treaty makes no specific refer- With melting ice providing a constant and the benefits of international scientific col- ence to MSR, but its articles do contain some pervasive counterpoint, Arctic investigators laboration in the Arctic region – or alterna- interesting points: and research managers recognize the bene- tively, how it could hamper field research. G A call for the freedom of scientific investi- fits that would accrue from the establish- Finally, it assesses the prospects for creating gation, and for cooperation as practiced ment of a lasting framework for cooperative an Arctic IPY legacy that resembles the ATS during the International Geophysical Year; scientific investigation within the region. An model through the establishment of a multi- G Encouragement for the exchange of plan- example of such a framework that comes national infrastructure for promoting scien- ning information, of research personnel, readily to mind is the one enshrined within tific research and the exchange of data on a and of scientific observations and results; the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), which continuing basis. G A call to demonstrate interest in Antarcti- fifty years ago grew out of the International ca through the conduct of a substantial Geophysical Year (IGY). MSR AND THE research activity such as the establish- IGY was a worldwide initiative that ANTARCTIC TREATY ment of a scientific station, or the dis- brought concerted international resources SYSTEM patch of a scientific expedition. to bear on problems whose solutions had Negotiated in 1959, the Antarctic Treaty The coordination of scientific activi- long been elusive. Among other things, the entered into force in 1961, and has worked ties in Antarctica is fulfilled by the non-gov- Treaty that it spawned continues to promote very successfully since then. The Treaty cov- ernmental Scientific Committee for Antarctic scientific research and the exchange of data ers the area south of 60°S, without prejudic- Research (SCAR). The original Treaty had no under the oversight of the Scientific Com- ing the rights of any state under internation- specific reference to SCAR, but this changed mittee for Antarctic Research (SCAR). Given al law with regard to the high seas within with the entry into force of the Protocol on CANADIAN POLAR COMMISSION 2 Antarctic Environmental Protection to the zones adjacent to its territory, the authority Within its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Antarctic Treaty in 1996, which has several diminishing progressively with increasing Economic Zone (EEZ), a coastal state also specific references to the role of SCAR. The distance from the coastline. Conversely, has the right to regulate, authorize, and con- Protocol calls for the Committee on the Envi- other states must progressively relinquish duct MSR, but under normal circumstances ronment to ensure that an environmental freedoms as they penetrate deeper into the it is expected to grant consent to other states impact assessment is conducted for all activ- zones where a coastal state exercises juris- that wish to engage in research for peaceful ities proposed in the Treaty area prior to diction. These freedoms assume several purposes and for the greater benefit of man- their initiation. This not only ensures protec- forms, but the freedom to conduct MSR is the kind. This consent is subject to certain con- tion of the environment, but it keeps all par- only one that will be considered here. ditions and procedures which are spelled out ties aware of developments. Within the 12 nautical mile Territorial in Part XIII of UNCLOS. In the Arctic Ocean, Sea that is adjacent to its territory, a coastal these provisions apply within the combined FALL/WINTER 2007 MSR IN THE state has the exclusive authority to regulate, EEZs of the five coastal states, which com- ARCTIC authorize, and conduct MSR. prise an unbroken belt that completely In the Arctic, the primary coordinator for MSR is the International Arctic Science Com- Figure 2 benefit of mankind. The darker area in the centre mittee (IASC). The Committee provides sci- Limits of Arctic coastal state jurisdiction. The lighter area represents a High Seas zone beyond the coastal state entific advice to the Arctic Council, which it represents the combined Exclusive Economic Zones EEZs,where the combined Article 76 claims of the five predates by several years. IASC is supported (EEZs) of Canada,Denmark,Norway,Russia,and the USA coastal states could result in new restrictions on MSR by the Forum of Arctic Research Operators, within the central Arctic Ocean (EEZs in adjoining seas, activities that address the seabed. The irregularly-shaped and liaises with several other organizations, i.e., Barents,Norwegian-Greenland,and Bering,are not white areas in the centre are zones where a provisional analysis suggests that Article 76 would not apply,and notably the Arctic Ocean Science Board, the shown for the sake of clarity). Within its EEZ,a coastal state has the right to regulate,authorize,and conduct where MSR could be undertaken without restriction by International Arctic Social Sciences Associa- Marine Scientific Research (MSR),but is expected to any state.