International Jurisdictional Issues in the Arctic Ocean

  • Kurt M. Shusterich
Conference paper


The Arctic has received notable attention from the natural science community, industry, social scientists, and national governments over the past ten years. This chapter discusses the unsettled jurisdictional issues in the Arctic region that are likely to become more significant over the next two decades. Although the Arctic is geographically remote, jurisdictional issues there have become increasingly problematic for several reasons.l The most important is an awareness of the vast natural resources in the region and the growing technological capability to exploit them commercially. Because that commercial interest is shared by several nations, jurisdictional boundaries are being more closely scrutinized and contested. The nations that directly border the Arctic Ocean are the United States, Canada, the Soviet Union, Greenland/Denmark, and Norway.


Continental Shelf Arctic Ocean Central Intelligence Agency Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Maritime Boundary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. K. Bertrand, “Optional Considerations: the Historical Background,” in G. Schatz, ed., Science, Technology and Sovereignty in the Polar Regions 18 (1974)Google Scholar
  2. L. McDorman, “The New Definition of ‘Canada Lands’ and the Determination of the Outer Limit of the Continental Shelf,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 14, no. 2 (April 1983): 195–223.Google Scholar
  3. Mark B. Feldman and David Colson, “The Maritime Boundaries of the United States,” American Journal onternational Law 75, no. 4 (October 1981):729–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Robert W. Smith, “A Geographical Primer to Maritime Boundary-Making,” Ocean Development and International Law 12, no. 1/2 (1982):7–22, especially pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  5. Robert D. Hodgson and Robert W. Smith, “Boundaries of the Economic Zone,” in Edward Miles and John K. Gamble, eds., Law of the Sea: Conference Outcomes and Problems of Implementation (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977), p. 183;Google Scholar
  6. Robert W. Smith, “Trends in National Maritime Claims,” Professional Geographer 32, no. 2 (1980):216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnaby J. Feder, “A Legal Regime for the Arctic,” Ecology Law Quarterly 6 (1978):805.Google Scholar
  8. Erik B. Wang, Department of External Affairs, Ottawa, “Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic: A Comment on The Arctic in Question,” in The Canadian Yearbook onternational Law 14 (1976):307–316.Google Scholar
  9. W. Harriet Critchley, “Canadian Security Policy in the Arctic: The Context for the Future,” in Marine Transportation and High Arctic Development: Policy Framework and Priorities, Symposium Proceedings, 21–23 March 1979, Montebello, Quebec, p. 184.Google Scholar
  10. Robert S. Reid, “The Canadian Claim to Sovereignty over the Waters of the Arctic,” The Canadian Yearbook onternational Law 12 (1974): 111–136.Google Scholar
  11. Roger D. McConchie and Robert S. Reid, “Canadian Foreign Policy and International Straits,” in Barbara Johnson and Mark W. Zacher, eds., Canadian Foreign Policy and the Law of the Sea (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1977), pp. 158–193.Google Scholar
  12. Donant Pharand, “The Northwest Passage in International Law,” Canadian Yearbook of International Law 17 (1979): 123.Google Scholar
  13. D. M. McRae and D.J. Goundry, “Environmental Jurisdiction in Arctic Waters: The Extent of Article 234,” University oritish Columbia Law Review 16 (1982): 197–228.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis M. Alexander, “The Ocean Enclosure Movement: Inventory and Prospect,” San Diego Law Review 20, no. 3 (1983):575.Google Scholar
  15. G.A. Pierce, “Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in the Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea,” Denver Journal ofInternational Law and Policy 10 (1981):331;Google Scholar
  16. Louis Sohn, “Settlement of Disputes Arising out of the Law of the Sea Convention,” San Diego Law Review 12 (1977):495Google Scholar
  17. Hodgson, “International Ocean Boundary Disputes,” Ocean Policy Study 1 (1978):37Google Scholar
  18. Feldmanand Cohen, “The Maritime Boundary of the United States,” American Journal of International Law 75 (1981):729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, “The Arctic: Last Unmanaged Frontier,” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 1 (Fall 1981):87–105, at 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. R. Tucker Scully, “Arctic Policy: Opportunities and Perspectives,” in Proceedings Preprints, Arctic Technology and Policy, March 2–4, 1983Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt M. Shusterich
    • 1
  1. 1.Center of the Woods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations