профессор, доктор юридических наук
Professor, Doctor of Law
кандидат юридических наук, Аналитический центр при Правительстве Российской Федерации
PhD
В статье обобщены международно-правовые доводы, на которые ссылались Норвегия, Канада и Дания (в части о. Гренландия) для обоснования «юридической чистоты» установления ими прямых исходных линий в Арктике. Основой для этого указанные государства обозначили комплекс географических, экологических и исторических факторов, свойственных конкретному арктическому побережью и его территориальному суверену. Дан прогноз вероятного изменения современной правовой позиции США в данном вопросе. Сделан вывод о том, что в целом практику Канады, Норвегии, Дании по проведению таких линий в Арктике следует квалифицировать как полностью соответствующую современному международному праву. Отмечено, что это имеет для Российской Федерации практическое значение: в соответствии с действующим законодательством Российской Федерации, на большей части ее арктического побережья применяются не прямые исходные линии, а «нормальные исходные линии», которые устанавливаются от «линии наибольшего отлива вдоль берега».
The paper summarizes the legal experience of Canada, Denmark (relating to Greenland) and Norway in drawing straight baselines in the Arctic which join the furthest seaward points selected by a relevant coastal state in the context of applicable rules of the Contemporary International Law. The authors of the paper have compiled the basic legal arguments, which were relied upon by the three Arctic Coastal States mentioned above to show the “legal purity” of their straight baselines along the Arctic coasts. Legal evaluation of such a practice of Norway, Canada and Denmark is suggested in the paper in the context of relevant rules of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958, and UNCLOS 1982, and the 1951 Judgment of the ICJ and relevant documents of the ILC. It is noted in the paper that the admissibility of such particularapplication by the three Arctic Coastal States of international legal provisions on baselines is well grounded by the complex of geographical, ecological and historical factors relating to a specific Arctic coast and to its concrete territorial sovereign. The conclusion is suggested that in spite the fact that the US protested against some of the straight baselines along the arctic coasts still the practice of Canada, Denmark and Norway in drawing straight baselines in the Arctic is in full accordance with applicable rules of the Contemporary International Law. It is also shown in the paper that the establishment of such straight baselines has a positive impact on the extent of sovereignty and sovereign rights of each of the respective Arctic Coastal State. Identification and assessment of arguments within international law in favor of establishment of straight baselines in the Arctic ocean - as these arguments were put forward by Denmark, Norway and Canada - has a practical value for the Russian Federation, because in accordance with the current Russian legislation straight baselines are not applied along the most part of its Arctic coast and instead “normal baselines” are established indicating the low-water lines along the major part of its arctic coast . It is concluded also that in such circumstances international legal experience of Canada, Denmark and Norway in drawing straight baselines along its arctic coasts is to be taken into the account by the Russian Federation as well as the legal justification of such straight baselines.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.