Changes in the Arctic Environment and the Law of the Sea, edited by Myron H. Nordquist , John Norton Moore and Tomas H. Heidar , published by Brill, 2010, xxx + 594pp., €163.00, hardback.

• Author: Claudia Cinelli
• Published date: 01 April 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12061
• Date: 01 April 2014

Book Reviews

Changes in the Arctic

Environment and the

Law of the Sea, edited by

Myron H. Nordquist,

John Norton Moore and

Tomas H. Heidar, published

by Brill, 2010, xxx + 594pp.,

€163.00, hardback.

This book consists of the proceed-

ings of the 33rd Annual Conference

of the Center for Oceans Law and

Policy, held at the University of

Virginia School of Law in May

2009. The Conference was held in a

significant city: the Arctic port of

Seward, which was named in honor

of William H. Seward, United States

Secretary of State under Abraham

Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.

Seward conducted the negotiation

for the purchase of Alaska upon

payment of over US$7 million to

Russia in 1867. At that time, the

purchase was described by the

expression ‘Seward’s folly’, since

Alaska did not seem ‘useful’ at first

blush due to its geographic isola-

tion and weather conditions. This

purchase, however, made the

United States an Arctic coastal

State. Mead Treadwell recalls this

episode in the introductory remarks

of the book: ‘Why did he [Seward]

buy Alaska? He did so because the

Arctic is rich’ (p. 4).

As the twenty-first century unfolds,

the Arctic is acquiring a new inter-

national visibility. It is subject to

major and rapid changes in social

and economic systems, ecosystems

and environmental processes.

There are common concerns for

climate change impacts, but at the

same time, the area is of significant

economic interest, with exploration

and exploitation activities in

relation to Arctic oil and gas explod-

ing in recent years. Arctic changes

and opportunities raise stimulating

policy questions about applicable

legal rules, which are dealt with in

this book.

The volume is divided into nine

‘Panels’, in accordance with the

structure of the Conference. Panel I

deals with an overview of changes in

the Arctic environment and the

applicable law of the sea. The Panel

was chaired by Satya N. Nandan,

one of the principal draftsmen of

the 1982 United Nations Conven-

tion on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS), who underlines that

‘the application of the 1982 Conven-

tion is recognized by the Arctic

States in the Ilulissat Declaration’

(p. 15). However, Nandan does not

mention the question of the Ameri-

can ratification of the 1982 Conven-

tion, which is still pending. The

Panel addresses the general ques-

tion: Is the Arctic Ocean subject,

like any other ocean, to the general

law of the sea? John Norton Moore,

United States Law of the Sea

Ambassador, emphasizes in his

contribution the fact that Arctic ice-

covered marine areas have gener-

ally been considered as if they were

any other marine area. The excep-

tion that proves the rule is in the

1982 Convention, which contains

the so-called ‘Arctic exception’ in

Article 234 (also known as the

‘Canadian clause’) – which Moore

personally negotiated – concerning

the protection and preservation of

the marine environment of the ice-

covered areas within the economic

exclusive zone. Rob Huebert raises

a different question: ‘[W]ill the

Arctic remain a region of coopera-

tion and good relations?’ (p. 58). In

his view, the Arctic is likely to

become more conflict-oriented than

in previous eras due to the com-

bined effects of Arctic warming and

technological developments, which

are accelerating ‘the ability of the

world to enter into the region’ (p.

58). Finally, Brian Van Pay reviews

each of the areas of agreement and

dispute in the Arctic Ocean basin up

to 2009. Not so much has changed

since then, apart from a new treaty

on maritime delimitation and coop-

eration in the Barents Sea and the

Arctic Ocean, signed on 15 Septem-

ber 2010 between Norway and

the Russian Federation. Van Pay

affirms that in the Arctic Ocean, as

elsewhere, maritime boundaries are

needed where there are overlapping

maritime zones of two or more

States with opposite or adjacent

coasts. Maritime disputes in the

Arctic are not too different from

other maritime areas across oceans

where overlapping disputes are

managed. With respect to the

Central Arctic Ocean, Van Pay pays

specific attention to the vicinity of

the Geographic North Pole, which is

another area of dispute between

Russia, Denmark, Canada and the

United States – even though the

latter has not yet publicly defined its

continental shelf – that has received

more attention since 2007. Van Pay

affirms that:

The North Pole itself does not neces-

sarily need to serve as terminating

point for maritime delimitations or

any future maritime boundaries

agreements – it is not a particularly

special point in this respect and, like

sector lines, using the Geographic

North Pole as a guide to defining

maritime boundaries has no basis in

UNCLOS. (p. 77)

Panel II deals with interdisciplinary

aspects related to the American

extended Continental Shelf Project,

and provides interesting insights

into mapping expeditions and

seismic data acquisitions. The

implications beyond sea level rise

and loss of ice cover are also

addressed, while the Panel con-

cludes with an analysis of issues

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 23 (1) 2014. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12061

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

150