Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:40:46.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arctic Networks and Legal Interpretations of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2015

SARI GRABEN  and
PETER HARRISON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is expected to play an essential role in delineating the rights of the Arctic states to seabed resources in the Arctic Ocean. In this article, the authors look to the effect of scientific discourse on Commission authority. The authors argue that in addition to the conferral of its authority by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Commission draws its authority in the Arctic from the way its regulatory frameworks, aimed at containing or closing off disputes about jurisdiction and sovereign rights, correlate with discursive practices used by transnational networks to reach scientific agreement.

Keywords

constructivisminternational lawinterpretationscienceUN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
Type
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 771 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 UNTS 397 [hereinafter the Convention]. The Convention is to be interpreted and applied together with the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, 28 July 1994, 1836 UNTS 3 [hereinafter 1994 Part XI Implementation Agreement] as a single instrument.

2 Ibid., Art. 76(7); Ann. II, Art. 4.

3 Ibid., Art. 76(8); Ann. II, Art. 4.

4 For discussion of the issue in the Arctic, see McDorman, T. L., ‘The Role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World’, (2002) 17 (3)Int’l J. Mar. & Coast. L. 30Google Scholar; McDorman, T. L., ‘The International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf with Special Reference to the Polar Regions’ in Loukacheva, N. (ed.), Polar Law Textbook II (2013), 77Google Scholar, at 83 (unexpected number of states claiming shelf beyond 200 nm). For discussion in relation to South China Sea, see Gau, M. Sheng-ti, ‘Recent Decisions of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on Japan's Submission for Outer Continental Shelf’, (2012) 11 CJIL 487Google Scholar. For discussion in relation to the South Atlantic, see Serdy, A., ‘Interpretation of UNCLOS Article 76 and the Negative Recommendation of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on Ascension Island’, (2013) 2 (3)CJICL 591CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Pedersen, T., ‘The Svalbard Continental Shelf Controversy: Legal Disputes and Political Rivalries’, (2006) 37 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allain, M. A., ‘Canada's Claim to the Arctic: A Study in Overlapping Claims to the Outer Continental Shelf’, (2011) 42 (1)J. Mar. L. & Comm. 1Google Scholar. For discussion, see Heidar, T. H., ‘Introduction’, in Cook, P. J. and Carleton, C. M. (eds.), Continental Shelf Limits: The Scientific and Legal Interface (2000), 3–7Google Scholar.

6 Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(3). For discussion of the ridge issue, see Brekke, H. and Symonds, P. A., ‘The Ridge Provisions of Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’, in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., and Heidar, T. H. (eds.), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (2004), 169Google Scholar; Macnab, R., ‘Submarine Elevations and Ridges: Wild Cards in the Poker Game of UNCLOS Article 76’, (2008) 39 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weber, M., ‘Defining the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf across the Arctic Basin: The Russian Submission, States’ Rights, Boundary Delimitation and Arctic Regional Cooperation’, (2009) 24 (4)Int’l J Marine and Coastal L 653CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(5).

8 Ibid., Art. 76(4)–(7); See Committee on ‘Legal Issues of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf’, in International Law Association Report of the Seventy Second Conference (2009), 215, 223–5.

9 See Nelson, L. D. M., ‘The Continental Shelf: Interplay of Law and Science’, in Ando, N. et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda (2002), 1235–53Google Scholar.

10 For instance, parties maintain that differences over which method should be used to measure the median delimiting state boundaries; what zone or coasts should be used to fix the median line; what relevance islands play; what prior behaviour is relevant, and what the geomorphology supports, have all made Arctic delimitation contentious.

11 Several maritime boundaries have been settled. Agreements have been reached between Norway and Russia; Canada and Denmark (Greenland); Russia and the United States; Iceland and Norway; Denmark and Norway, as well as between Denmark, Greenland, and Iceland.

12 M. Byers, Who Owns the Arctic? Understanding Sovereignty Disputes in the North (2009); Riddell-Dixon, E., ‘Canada's Arctic Continental Shelf Extension’, (2008) 39 (4)Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Canada made a ‘partial’ submission in December 2013 which did not include the Arctic continental shelf. Further analysis is being undertaken with reference to the Lomonosov Ridge. Denmark/Greenland made its submission in December 2014 and, pointedly, included the geographic North Pole as part of its extended continental shelf.

14 The Ilulissat Declaration, 28 May 2008.

15 See, e.g., Canada's statement that continental shelf mapping process is ‘not adversarial’, in Northern Strategy: Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Government of Canada, 2009).

16 Carlson, J. D., et al., ‘Scramble for the Arctic: Layered Sovereignty, UNCLOS and Competing Maritime Territorial Claims’, in (2013) Vol. XXXIII No. 2 SAIS Review 21–43Google Scholar. For a contrary view, see Matz-Luck, N., ‘Planting the Flag in the Arctic Waters: Russia's Claim to the North Pole’, (2009) 2 (1)Göttingen Journal of International Law 235Google Scholar.

17 For the same argument, see Øystein, J., ‘The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: An Administrative, Scientific or Judicial Institution’, (2014) 45 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 171Google Scholar, at 171.

18 See, e.g., Oude Elferink, A. G., ‘The Continental Shelf in the Polar Regions: Cold War or Black Letter Law’, (2009) 40 (1)Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 121, at 181CrossRefGoogle Scholar (law is paramount); McDorman, T., ‘The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 NM: Law and Politics in the Arctic Ocean’, (2009) 18 Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 155Google Scholar (law will determine rights); Macnab, supra note 6 (effect of Commission); Riddell-Dixon, E., ‘Canada and Arctic Politics: The Continental Shelf Extension’, (2008) 39 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar (orderly determination by law). For broader discussion, see Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., and Heidar, T. H. (eds.) Legal and Scientific Aspects of the Continental Shelf Limits (2003)Google Scholar; Cook and Carleton (eds.), supra note 5.

19 Ibid.

20 For application of this approach to specific legal issues, see Brekke, H. and Symonds, P., ‘Submarine Ridges and Elevations of Article 76 in Light of Published Summaries of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’, (2011) 42 (4)Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weber, supra note 6; Basaran, I., ‘The Lomonosov Ridge and the Overlapping Outer Continental Shelf Claim to the North Pole’, (2015) 46 (1)J. Mar. L. & Comm. 1Google Scholar; A. Grantz, ‘Treatment of Ridges and Borderlands Under Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: The Example of the Arctic Ocean’, in Nordquist, et al., supra note 18.

21 See Golitzyn, V., ‘Continental Shelf Claims in the Arctic Ocean: A Commentary’, (2009) 24 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 401CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 For discussion, see Lathrop, C. G., ‘Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Approaches Taken by Coastal States Before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’, in Colson, D. A. and Smith, R. W. (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries (2011), 4139–60Google Scholar. For the role of non-coastal states in disputes, see Oude Elferink, A. G., ‘Establishment of Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: The Possibilities of Other States to Have an Impact on the Process’, (2009) 24 Int’l J. Marine & Coastal L. 535CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gau, M. Sheng-ti, ‘The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as a Mechanism to Prevent Encroachment upon the Area’, (2011) 10 (1)CJIL 3Google Scholar.

23 See, e.g., McDorman, supra note 18, at 161; Allain, supra note 5, at 36–37.

24 Orford, A., ‘Scientific Reason and the Discipline of International Law’, (2014) 25 (2)EJIL 369CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, D., ‘Challenging Expert Rule: The Politics of Global Governance’, (2005) 27 Syd. J. Int’l L. 5Google Scholar; M. Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (1996); S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers (1990).

25 Baker, B., ‘Law, Science and the Continental Shelf: The Russian Federation and the Promise of Arctic Cooperation’, (2011) 25 Am. U. Int’l L. R 251Google Scholar; Young, O., ‘Review Article: The Future of the Arctic: Cauldron of Conflict or Zone of Peace?’, (2011) 87 (1)Int’l Affairs 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koivurova, T., ‘The Dialectic of Understanding Progress in Arctic Governance’, (2013) 22 (1)Mich. St. Int’l L. Rev. 1Google Scholar; Lathrop, supra note 22; Nelson, supra note 9.

26 Øystein, supra note 17, at 171–85; Suarez, S. V., ‘Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and It's Function to Provide Scientific and Technical Advice’, (2013) 12 CJIL 339Google Scholar; Cavnar, A., ‘Accountability and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Deciding Who Owns the Ocean Floor’, (2009) 42 Cornell Int’l L. J. 387Google Scholar.

27 For discussion of legal process as part of legal realism in relation to international law, see Shaffer, G., ‘The New Legal Realist Approach to International Law’, (2015) 28 (2)LJIL 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(1).

29 Ibid., Art. 76(1), 76(4). The Convention defines the extended continental shelf as comprising the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin.

30 Ibid., Art. 76(4).

31 Ibid., Art 246.

32 Ibid., Art. 77(3).

33 Ibid., Arts. 1(1), 133, 136.

34 See supra note 5.

35 McDorman, supra note 4.

36 P. A. Symonds et al., ‘Characteristics of Continental Margins’, in Cook and Carleton (eds.), supra note 5, at 26.

37 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, Art. 31.

38 Ibid., Art. 32.

39 See, e.g., Commission on Legal Issues of the Outer Continental Shelf, supra note 8, at 223–5; on how the thickness of sedimentary rocks, referred to in Art. 76(4)(a)(i) should be interpreted where the topography is irregular.

40 For discussion, see Brekke and Symonds, supra note 20, at 289–306; Weber, supra note 6, at 665–70; Macnab, supra note 6.

41 Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(5).

42 Ibid., Art. 76(6).

43 See, e.g., US concerns in its notes verbales on the Russian submission. Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, United States of America: Notification Regarding the Submission made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits on the Continental Shelf (2002).

44 Verhoef, J., Mosher, D., and Forbes, S., ‘Defining Canada's Extended Shelves’, (2011) 38 (2)Geoscience Canada 85, at 92Google Scholar.

45 Brekke and Symonds, supra note 20, at 302.

46 This distinction formed the basis of the 2002 US Notification to the Russian submission regarding the Alpha-Mendeleev Ridge. For discussion, see Baker, supra note 25, at 270.

47 Annex II of the Convention.

48 Rothwell, D. R., ‘Building on the Strengths and Addressing the Challenges: The Role of the Law of the Sea Institutions’, (2004) 35 Ocean Dev. & Inst’l L. 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 133 (Commission's quasi-judicial role will impact delineation).

49 Bartenstein, K., ‘Flag Planting’, (2009) 65 Int’l J. 187, at 192Google Scholar.

50 Commentators have opined that the proper position of the Commission in the outer limit delineation process is that of a legtimatizer of state claims, which acts as a technical safeguard against state party exaggeration. See McDorman, supra note 4, at 319.

51 International Law Association, Second Report (by C. Bernasconi and G. Betlem) on Transnational Enforcement of Environmental Law, International Law Association, Berlin Conference (2004), Report of the Seventy-First Conference, Berlin, 2004, at 5.

52 For example, for procedural issues, it relies on the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs. See, e.g., Scientific and Technical CLCS Guidelines, section 7. For substantive legal issues, it seeks advice from the Legal Counsel of the United Nations. See, e.g., Legal Opinion as to the Most Appropriate Procedure in Cases Where It Might Be Necessary to Institute Proceedings Following an Alleged Breach of Confidentiality, Doc. CLCS/14 (18 May 1999).

53 For discussion, see Gudlaugsson, S. T., ‘Natural Prolongation and the Concept of the Continental Margin for the Purpose of Article 76’, in Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., and Heider, T. H. (eds.), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (2004), 61Google Scholar, at 63–64; Noyes, J. E., ‘Judicial and Arbitral Proceedings and the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf’, (2009) 42 Va. J. Transnat’l L. 1211Google Scholar, at 1232.

54 Guzman, A., ‘A Compliance Based Theory of International Law’, (2002) 90 Cal. L. R. 1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 1829. For an argument that distinguishes between the efficacy of inter-state and transnational tribunals, see Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., and Slaughter, A., ‘Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational’, (2000) 54 (3)International Organizations 457CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(7) (‘The coastal state shall delineate . . .’). Also see Art. 2(3) (‘The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation’).

56 Report of the Eleventh Meeting of State Parties to the LOS Convention, Doc. SPLOS/73 of 14 June 2001, para. 75, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/meeting_states_parties/documents/splos_73 (statements of delegates on the topic) (accessed 12 August 2015).

57 Note No. 08/11 of 11 January 2011, addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr08/gbr_nv_11jan2011.pdf (accessed 12 August 2015).

58 Guzman, A. T. and Landsidle, J., ‘The Myth of International Delegation’, (2008) 96 (6)Cal. L. R. 1693Google Scholar, at 1693.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 See Macnab, R., ‘The Case for Transparency in the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf in Accordance with UNCLOS Article 76’, (2004) 35 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 14–16.

62 Cavnar, supra note 26, at 425–6.

63 Coakley, B. and Baker, B., ‘Mapping for Advocacy – Using Marine Geophysical Data to Establish the Limits of Extended Continental Shelves Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’, (2008) 89 EOS Trans. AGU Fall Meeting Supp.Google Scholar, Abstract GC33B-0780, quoted in B. Baker, supra note 25, at 251–81.

64 Allain, supra note 5, at 4.

65 For example, Finnemore and Sikkink have posited that international norms have a life cycle composed of three stages: emergence, acceptance, and internalization. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K., ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, (1998) 52 (4)Int’l Org 887CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 J. Brunnee and S. J. Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (2010).

67 For example, Brunnee, J. and Toope, S. J., ‘Persuasion and Enforcement: Explaining Compliance with International Law’, (2002) 13 Finn. Ybk. Int’l L. 273Google Scholar (identity); Guzman, supra note 54; Franck, T. M., ‘Legitimacy in the International System’, (1988) 82 Am. J. Int’l L. 705CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 705; Koh, H., ‘Why Do Nations Obey International Law?’, (1997) 106 Yale L.J. 2599CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 2646.

68 Finnemore, M. and Toope, S. J., ‘Alternatives to Legalization: Richer Views of Law and Politics’, (2008) 55 Int’l Org. 743CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 750. For discussion of multi-dimensional policy networks, which operate outside of legitimated policy networks, see Kirk, E., ‘Marine Governance, Adaptation and Legitimacy’, (2011) 22 (1)Ybk Int’l Env. L. 110Google Scholar.

69 J. Øystein, The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Law and Legitimacy (2014).

70 Suarez, supra note 26, at 349.

71 H. D. Lasswell and M. McDougal, Jurisprudence for a Free Society: Studies in Law, Science and Policy (1992), 803–33.

72 Øystein, supra note 17, at 171–2.

73 O. R. Young and G. Osherenko, The Age of the Arctic: Hot Conflicts and Cold Realities (1989), O. R. Young, Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance (1998); Young, O. R. and Osherenko, G. (eds.) Polar Politics (1993)Google Scholar. Also see, E. C. H. Keskitalo, Negotiating the Arctic: The Construction of an International Region (2003).

74 Young, supra note 25, at 192.

75 Baker, supra note 25, at 263.

76 Ibid.

77 For a similar description of process, see Koh, supra note 67, at 2617–27 (book review).

78 A. Chayes and A. H. Chayes, The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements (1998), 28.

79 For example, see Finnemore, supra note 24 (effect of UNESCO on creation of domestic science, bureaucracies); Lasswell and McDougall, supra note 71.

80 Jasanoff, supra note 24.

81 S. Jasanoff, Science and Public Reason (2012).

82 Joerges, C., ‘Law, Science and the Management of Risks to Health at the National, European and International Level – Stories on Baby Dummies, Mad Cows and Hormones in Beef’, (2001) 7 Colum. J. Eur. L. 1, 15Google Scholar.

83 R. Merton, ‘The Normative Structure of Science’, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1942), 267–78.

84 Ibid.

85 Jasanoff, supra note 24; Jasanoff, supra note 81.

86 For discussion of techniques, see ibid.; Vinuales, J. E., ‘Legal Techniques for Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty in Environmental Law’, (2010) 43 Va. J. Transnat’l L. 437Google Scholar; Salter, L., ‘Science and Peer Review: The Canadian Standard Setting Experience’, (1985) 10 (4)Science Technology & Human Values 37, at 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Chayes and Chayes, supra note 78.

88 Ibid.

89 Polanyi, M., ‘The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory’, (2000) 38 Minerva 1, at 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 For factors that impact the generation of consensus, see Marti, B. and Richards, E., ‘Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision-Making’, in Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (1995), 506–26Google Scholar (on effects of funding); S. Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and Politics (1998) (on effects of politics).

91 Belousek, D. W., ‘Scientific Consensus and Public Policy: The Case of Pfiesteria’, (2004) 4 J. Phil., Science and LawGoogle Scholar.

92 Ranalli, B., ‘Climate Science, Character, and the “Hard-Won” Consensus’, (2012) 22 (2)Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 183 at 185CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

93 Ibid.

94 For discussion, see Collins, H. and Evans, R. (eds.), Rethinking Expertise (2009), 8Google Scholar.

95 J. Peel, Science and Risk Regulation in International Law (2010).

96 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Marrakesh, 55 UNTS 194, 1867 UNTS 187.

97 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2226 UNTS 208.

98 Haas, P. M., ‘Knowledge, Power and International Coordination’, (1992) 46 (1)Int’l Org. 27Google Scholar.

99 See also, Brunee, J. and Toope, S., ‘The Change Nile Basin Regime: Does Law Matter?’, (2002) 43 Harv. Int’l L.J. 105Google Scholar.

100 For an example in relation to the International Whaling Commission see, Heazle, M., ‘Scientific Uncertainty and the International Whaling Commission: An Alternative Perspective on the Use of Science in Policy Making’, (2004) 28 (5)Marine Policy 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Ibid.

102 Convention, supra note 1, Art. 76(8), Annex II Art. 2(1).

103 Schachter, O., ‘Scientific Advances and International Law Making’, (1967) 55 Cal. L. Rev. 423CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 426.

104 For discussion, see D. Avgerinopoulou, ‘Review Bodies in Multilateral Environmental Agreements – Competences, Coherence, Coordination’ (4th Global Administrative Law Seminar, New York University School of Law and University of Rome, Viterbo, Italy, 12–14 June, 2009), available at http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/V5.Avgerinopoulou.pdf (accessed 12 August 2015).

105 See Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 1.3, UN Doc. CLCS/11 (1999) (prepared by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) [hereinafter CLCS Guidelines].

106 See N. M. Antunes and F. M. Pimentel, ‘Reflecting on the Legal –Technical Interface of Article 76 of the LOSC: Tentative Thoughts on Practical Implementation 20’ (presented at ABLOS Conference Addressing Difficult Issues in UNCLOS, 2003), available at http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS03Folder/monaco03_rept.pdf (12 August 2015).

107 For a summary of the issue, Weber, supra note 6, at 653–68.

108 CLCS Guidelines, supra note 105, para. 7.2.11.

109 For discussion, see Suarez, supra note 26, at 354.

110 Convention, supra note 1, Art. 3, Annex II.

111 Suarez, supra note 26, at 360 (reporting that 43 out of 61 submitting states obtained advice).

112 Ibid.

113 Baker, supra note 25.

114 B. Kingsbury and R. B. Stewart, ‘Legitimacy and Accountability in Global Regulatory Governance: The Emerging Global Administrative Law and the Design and Operation of Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations’, in S. Flogaitis (ed.), International Administrative Tribunals in a Changing World (forthcoming)

115 Riddell-Dixon, E., ‘Meeting the Deadline: Canada's Arctic Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’, (2011) 42 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 368CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 Ibid.

117 Joint US-Russia Workshop on the Plate Tectonic Evolution of Northeast Russia, National Science Foundation Works, 9–12 December 2004 Stanford University, Stanford CA.

118 P. A. Symonds and H. Brekke, ‘A Scientific Overview of Ridges Related to Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’, in Nordquist et al., supra note 53, at 147; and Brekke and Symonds, supra note 6, at 179. Organizations that have made statements include the Commission, in Scientific and Technical CLCS Guidelines, supra note 105, The Outer Continental Shelf Committee of the International Law Association, The Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, and the International Hydrographic Organization, International Hydrographic Organization, ‘Standardization of Undersea Feature Names’ (2001) Bathymetic Publication No. 6, at 2–25.

119 Symonds and Brekke, supra note 118, at 141–68; MacNab, supra note 6; Gorski, T., ‘A Note on Submarine Ridges and Elevations with Special Reference to the Russian Federation and the Arctic Ridges’, (2009) 40 Ocean Dev. Int’l L. 56Google Scholar.

120 Jackson, H. R., Dahl-Jensen, T., the LORITA Working Group, ‘Sedimentary and Crustal Structure from the Ellesmere Island and Greenland Continental Shelves on the Lomonosov Ridge, Arctic Ocean’, (2010) 182 (1)Geoph. J. Int’l 11Google Scholar, at 13.

121 For discussion of alternative methods for analysing how governments engage with a variety of actors, see Kirk, supra note 68.

122 Haas, P. M., ‘Knowledge, Power and International Policy Coordination’, (1992) 46 (1)Int’l Org., 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 27.

123 Ibid.

124 Ilulissat Declaration 2008, supra note 14, at 7.

125 Press Release, Nat. Resources Can., Using Science to Delineate the Limits of Canada's Continental Shelf (2007), available at http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/org/atlantic/pdf/unclos_e.pdf (accessed 12 August 2015).

126 Verhoef et al., supra note 44, at 92.

127 Cont’l Shelf Project, LORITA-1 (Lomonosov Ridge Test of Appurtenance): Fieldwork During April/May 2006 North of Canada/Greenland, http://a76.dk/expeditions_uk/lorita-1_uk/index.html (accessed 12 August 2015). Press Release, Natural Res. Can., Undersea Data: Canada and Denmark Agree on Joint Survey (14 July 2005) available at http://www.international.gc.ca/continental/collaboratin.aspx (accessed 12 August 2015).

128 Riddell-Dixon, supra note 115 (noting this data was also presented at the 2010 Meetings of the American Geophysical Union).

129 IBCAO website http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/arctic/arctic.html (accessed 12 August 2015).

130 Ibid.

131 R. Macnab et al., ‘Cooperative Preparations for Determining the Outer Limits of the Judicial Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean: A Model for Regional Collaboration in Other Parts of the World?’, (2001) Ibru Boundary & Sec Bull. 86, at 87.

132 Based on difficulties obtaining agreement, coastal states are likely to submit claims and documentation in support of their claims separately, see Lathrop, supra note 22, at 4154.

133 M. Byers International Law and the Arctic (2013), 109–112.

134 Ibid., at 112 (on coordinated submissions).

135 http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/working-groups/114-resources/about/working-groups (accessed 12 August 2015).

136 http://www.iasc.info/ (accessed 12 August 2015).

137 This role is especially important in environmental regimes, where technical data grounds compliance-claims. See D. T. Avgerinopoulou, ‘Review Bodies in Multilateral Environmental Agreements – Competences, Coherence, Coordination’, 4th Global Administrative Law Seminar, New York University School of Law and University of Rome, Viterbo, Italy, (12–14 June 2009) available at http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/V5.Avgerinopoulou.pdf (accessed 12 August 2015).

138 Keskitalo, supra note 73, at 161–2, 166; Nilsson, A, ‘A Changing Arctic Climate: Science and Policy in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment’, (2009) 50 Environment & Policy 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koivurova, T., ‘Limits and Possibilities of the Arctic Council in a Rapidly Changing Scene of Arctic Governance’, (2010) 46 (2)Polar Record 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 http://www.ipy.org/ (accessed 12 August 2015).

140 http://icarp.iasc.info/ (accessed 12 August 2015).

141 Keskitalo, supra note 73, at 28–30.

142 Sheng-ti Gau, supra note 4.

143 Serdy, supra note 4.

144 Joint US-Russia Workshop on the Plate Tectonic Evolution of Northeast Russia (9–12 December 2004), http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/structure/nerussia/index.html (stating that the primary goal of the workshop was to ‘to frame a long-term scientific plan and to outline potential collaborative projects that utilize existing expertise, databases, laboratories and institutional capabilities’) (accessed 12 August 2015).

145 Baker, supra note 25.

146 Ibid.