Canada – United States of America Beaufort Sea Boundary Negotiations: Current Issues and Prospects

INTRODUCTION. With the polar regions becoming ice-free and scientific data on the hydrocarbon potential of the Arctic continental shelf increasing, the issue of a fair delimitation between the United States of America (U.S.) and Canada in the Beaufort Sea is becoming more acute. On September 24, 2024, both governments announced new delimitation negotiations (including the continental shelf). However, the U.S. is not party to the 1982 United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea. Furthermore, there are still no recommendations from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf regarding Canada’s submission about the outer limits of its shelf. Therefore, a question arises about the viability and legitimacy of a final agreement on the delimitation of the Beaufort Sea from an international law perspective. In this article, the author shares his perspective on this issue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study is based on scientific developments by Russian and foreign international lawyers, particularly over the past five years. The legal framework includes delimitation treaties between Arctic coastal states and decisions of International Court of Justice and international arbitral tribunals on delimitation issues. The methodology used includes general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparison, classification, systematization, and forecasting) as well as specific scientific methods (including formal legal analysis, comparative legal methods, and legal hermeneutics).
RESEARCH RESULTS. The author concludes that the creation of the joint task force to undertake negotiations on the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea is occurring in the context of climate change, which has heightened the region's economic importance and made the need for legal certainty more pressing. At the same time, several previous obstacles to negotiations have now become irrelevant. The current geopolitical context additionally stimulates the parties' interest in a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The paper argues that nothing in principle prevents the two states from undertaking continental-shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles. Looking ahead, a central question will be how any bilateral settlement incorporates the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’s recommendations for Canada.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The current environment, in contrast to previous negotiations, appears favorable to a mutually acceptable outcome. Nevertheless, several legal uncertainties persist—chief among them the method for delimiting areas beyond 200 nautical miles. At the same time, the absence of a recommendation from the CLCS to Canada may delay reaching a final agreement or lead to the development of temporary solutions. In general, despite the favorable political context, the author believes it is premature to discuss the possibility of a quick conclusion to the negotiations.

1. Baker B. Filling an Arctic Gap: Legal and Regulatory Possibilities for Canadian – U.S. Cooperation in the Beaufort Sea. – Vermont Law Review. 2009. Vol. 34. Р. 57.

2. Baker J.S., Byers M. Crossed Lines: The Curious Case of the Beaufort Sea Maritime Boundary Dispute. – Ocean Development & International Law. 2012. Vol. 43. № 1. Р. 70-95. DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2012.647509.

3. Bekker P., van de Poll R. Unlocking the Arctic’s Resources Equitably. – The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. 2020. № 35. Р. 163-200.

4. Bunik I.V. Spor mezhdu SSHA i Kanadoj o razgranichenii v more Boforta (mezhdunarodno-pravovoj analiz) [US – Canada Beaufort Sea Maritime Boundary Dispute in the Perspective of International Law]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2018. № 2. Р. 126-137. DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2018-2-126-137. (In Russ.)

5. Byers M., Østhagen A. Why Does Canada Have So Many Unresolved Maritime Boundary Disputes? – Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international. 2017. № 54. Р. 1-62. DOI: 10.1017/cyl.2017.14.

6. Huebert R. Drawing Boundaries in the Beaufort Sea: Different Visions/Different Needs. – Journal of Borderlands Studies. 2018. Vol. 33. № 2. Р. 203-223. DOI: 10.1080/08865655.2017.1348908.

7. Kirkey С. Delineating Maritime Boundaries: The 1977– 78 Canada – U.S. Beaufort Sea Continental Shelf Delimitation Boundary Negotiations. – Canadian Review of American Studies. 1995. № 25 (2). Р. 49-66.

8. Lackenbauer W.Р. The Beaufort Boundary: An Historical Appraisal of a Maritime Boundary Dispute. – Canada and the Maritime Arctic Boundaries, Shelves, and Waters. P.W. Lackenbauer, S. Lalonde, E. Riddell-Dixon. NAADSN. 2020. P. 1-62.

9. Lalonde S., Lackenbauer P.W. Moving Beyond Benign Neglect: The Beaufort Sea Dispute and the Benefits of Compromise Solutions between Salt Water Neighbors, An Essay in Honor of Ted L. McDorman. – Ocean Development & International Law. 2024. Vol. 55. № 4. Р. 422433. DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2024.2419030.

10. Lando M. Judicial Uncertainties Concerning Territorial Sea Delimitation Under Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of The Sea. – The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2017. Vol. 66. № 3. P. 589-623.

11. Landriault M., Pic P., Lasserre F. 2023. Beyond Hans Island: The Canada-Denmark agreement’s possible impact on mobility and continental shelves. – International Journal. 2023. Vol. 78. № 1-2. P. 243-253. DOI: 10.1177/00207020231175760.

12. Liao X. Delimitation methodology for the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles: Three-stage approach as a way forward? – Leiden Journal of International Law. 2024. Vol. 37. № 2. Р. 379-399. DOI: 10.1017/S0922156523000596.

13. Magnússon B.M. Can the United States Establish the Outer Limits of Its Extended Continental Shelf Under International Law? – Ocean Development & International Law. 2017. Vol. 48. № 1. Р. 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2017.1265361.

14. McDorman. Salt Water Neighbors: International Ocean Law Relations Between the United States and Canada. New York: Oxford University Press. 2009. xxxi + 382 p.

15. Molodtsov S.V. Konventzia OON po morskomu pravu i pravovoi status iskluchitel'noi economicheskoi zony [The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Legal status of the Exclusive Economic zone]. – The Soviet State and law [Sovietskoe gosudarstvo i pravo]. 1986. C. 85-92. (In Russ.)

16. Pharand D. Canada's Arctic Waters in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988. 288 p.

17. Refai N. The Beaufort Sea Boundary Dispute: A Consideration of Rights of Inuit in Canada and the United States. – Alberta Law Review. 2022. Vol. 60. № 1. P. 267-306.

18. Rothwell D.R. Maritime Boundaries and Resource Development: Options for the Beaufort Sea. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law. 1988. 61 p.

19. Shake K.L., Frey K.E., Martin D.G., Steinberg P.E. (Un)frozen Spaces: Exploring the Role of Sea Ice in the Marine Socio-legal Spaces of the Bering and Beaufort Seas. – Journal of Borderlands Studies. 2017. № 33 (2). Р. 239-253. DOI: 10.1080/08865655.2017.1340847.

20. Tsarev V.F. Vopros o razgranichenii kontinental'nogo shelfa mezhdu gosudarstvami s protivopolozhnymi i smezhnymi beregami [The issue of the delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite and adjacent shores]. – Modern international law. The regime of the waters and the bottom of the World Ocean [Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe morskoe pravo. Regim vod y dna Mirovogo oceana]. Otv. red. M.I. Lazarev. Moscow: Nauka. 1974. C. 248-255. (In Russ.)

21. Vylegzhanin A.N. Mezhdunarodnye pravovye principy razgranichenia 200-mil'nyh economicheskih zon i continental'nyh shelfov [International legal principles for the delimitation of 200-mile economic zones and continental shelves]. – Sovietskoe gosudarstvo i pravo [The Soviet State and law]. 1984. No. 3. S. 125-129. (In Russ.)

22. Vylegzhanin A.N. Pravovoe polozhenie Arkticheskogo regiona v dokumentah [Legal status of the Arctic region in documents]. – Arkticheskij region: Problemy mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva: Hrestomatiya v 3 tomah [Arctic Region: Problems of International Cooperation: Reader in 3 Volumes]. Russian Council for International Affairs [ed. I.S. Ivanov]. Moscow: Aspect Press. 2013. Vol. 3: Primenimye pravovye istochniki [Applicable legal sources]. P. 11-45. (In Russ.)

23. Vylegzhanin A.N. 20 let «vremennogo primeneniya» Soglasheniya mezhdu SSSR i SSHA o linii razgranicheniya morskih prostranstv [20 years of provisional application of the Agreement between the USA and the USSR on the Maritime Boundary]. – Bulletin of MGIMO University [MGIMO Review of International Relations]. 2010. № 1 (10). P. 104-113. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2010-1-10-104-113. (In Russ.)

24. Vylegzhanin A.N., Babina A.V. Preferencial'nye prava mestnyh zhitelej Arktiki: mezhdunarodno-pravovye osnovaniya i zakonodatel'nyj opyt inostrannyh arkticheskih gosudarstv. [Preferential Rights of Local Inhabitants of the North: International Legal Grounds and legislative Experience of Arctic States]. – Moscow Journal of International Law [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2014. № 1. Р. 62-81. DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2014-1-62-81 (In Russ.)

25. Vylegzhanin A.N., Bunik I.V. Status ostrova Gansa [Status of Hans Island]. – Arkticheskaya pravovaya enciklopediya [Arctic Law Encyclopedia]. Eds. A.V. Torkunov, A.N. Vylegzhanin. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo «Aspekt Press». 2024. P. 287-288. (In Russ.)

26. Vylegzhanin A.N., Gavrilov V.V. Pravovoj rezhim otkrytogo morya v central'noj chasti Severnogo Ledovitogo okeana [Legal regime of the high seas in the central part of the Arctic Ocean]. – Arkticheskaya pravovaya enciklopediya [Arctic Law Encyclopedia]. Eds. A.V. Torkunov, A.N. Vylegzhanin. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo «Aspekt Press». 2024. Р. 203-204. (In Russ.)