Question: Mr Musikhin, at the end of last year, the media reported that the US Department of State announced the outer limits of the US continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in a number of areas of the World Ocean. Could you tell us what this 200-mile limit means and why it is considered so important?

Maxim Musikhin: Probably, it is worth starting with the definition of the continental shelf and what limits it may have.

The continental shelf of a coastal state comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending beyond its territorial sea for a certain distance. This distance may be limited to either 200 nautical miles or extend throughout natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin. That is, in simple words: if the land territory of a state geologically continues underwater, the continental shelf ends where the underwater boundary of the mainland lies, if not – the shelf ends at the mark of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

It is important to understand that the continental shelf is not a territory of a state: the latter ends at the outer limit of a territorial sea. Further, up to 200 nautical miles, the water column is referred to as an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the seabed is referred to as the continental shelf. They are not subject to the sovereignty of a coastal state which has there only rights and jurisdiction with regard to several types of activities. Thus, in case of the continental shelf, these are sovereign rights to explore and exploit its natural resources. Shelf resources are defined as mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil, as well as “sedentary species” of living organisms such as crabs (i.e. fish resources living in the water column are not included).

The seabed within 200 miles of the baselines is essentially legal continental shelf. That is, it is assigned to a state even when that part of the seabed adjacent to the territorial sea cannot be referred to as geological continental shelf.

The continental shelf of a coastal state may extend beyond 200 nautical miles only if there is scientific evidence proving that the geological shelf continues beyond the 200 nautical mile mark. For the purposes of today’s discussion, let’s refer to such a shelf as ’extended’ shelf.

Question: So, it transpires that by its December decision, the US increased the length of its seabed area where it has sovereign rights to exploit resources?

Maxim Musikhin: In effect, this is exactly why it announced the extension of the shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. However, the question boils down to how this was done.

The right of a coastal state to have the continental shelf is a norm of international law. However, at present, the only internationally recognised mechanism for confirming that seabed areas beyond 200 nautical miles belong to the ‘extended’ continental shelf of the given coastal state is the examination and confirmation of the relevant evidence by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), established under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In accordance with the Convention, the coastal state in question shall submit to the Commission information on the limits of the continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In turn, the Commission studies the presented information and makes recommendations as to whether or not the area claimed by the coastal state is geologically its ‘extended’ continental shelf. Under the Convention, the limits of the shelf established by the state based on the Commission’s recommendations are final and binding.

As we know, the US has not submitted any information to the Commission because it is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (as distinct from 168 countries who are parties to the Convention).

In this situation, it will be logical to ask whether the US can legally claim the right to announce relevant areas of the seabed as its ‘extended’ continental shelf. After all, nobody has officially verified US geological data.

We have become used to Washington’s unilateral actions. It is pushing its rules whenever it cannot meet its own needs by using the current international law.

This time, the US is also true to itself. It simply announced parts of the World Ocean floor to be its shelf.

We do not agree with these US claims.

Question: What was a reaction of our country to the unilateral decision by the United States to establish the outer limits of its ‘extended’ continental shelf?

Maxim Musikhin: In a note addressed to Washington, Russia stated it did not recognise the outer limits of the ‘extended’ continental shelf unilaterally declared by it. We noted that such actions are yet another case of the selective approach to using the norms of international law practiced by the United States, and noted the untenable nature of the attempts by the American side to selectively apply the norms of the 1982 Convention by using the provisions that grant it certain rights and privileges, while ignoring its obligations.

We also stated that the absolute majority of the countries that establish the outer limits of their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles carry out such work strictly in accordance with Article 76 of the 1982 Convention by receiving recommendations of the Commission on certain seabed areas being part of the continental shelf.

Without expecting much, we urged the United States to ratify the 1982 Convention and to fully comply with the obligations thereunder.

Our delegation came forward with similar considerations at a meeting of the International Seabed Authority Council this March. Notably, China’s representatives lined up with our statement. Later, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also publicly condemned unilateral steps by the United States to establish the outer limits of the ‘extended’ shelf.

We plan to continue working at various international fora to discredit the unilateral actions of the United States.

Question: What was the United States supposed to do if it wanted to act in accordance with the international legal procedure?

Maxim Musikhin: Well, first, to ratify the 1982 Convention, and second, to act in accordance with Article 76 of this international treaty, as bona fide countries do when they claim an ‘extended’ continental shelf.

Over 60 countries have approached the Commission already, an impressive but not final number, as more submissions may be made. Moreover, a number of states have made more than one and even more than two submissions. The countries that have claimed an ‘extended’ continental shelf in the Arctic include Denmark and Canada, which are awaiting the Commission’s recommendations concerning the materials submitted in the 2010s.

That is, having prepared its submission (or rather several submissions, since the Americans are claiming the shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in seven areas of the World Ocean) for an ‘extended’ shelf, Washington was supposed to submit materials to the CLCS, comply with all the procedures stipulated by the Convention and documents of the Commission, and wait for the Commission to approve recommendations concerning its submissions.

Pending the Commission’s recommendations, the maritime areas beyond the 200-mile area may potentially be categorised as part of the international seabed area, declared the “common heritage of mankind,” with its resources utilised for the benefit of all humankind. The establishment of the outer limits of the ‘extended’ shelf is thus a matter that cannot depend on the will of just one country. The establishment of the outer limits of the ‘extended’ shelf based on the Commission’s recommendations is a precise multilateral mechanism based on a balance of the interests of different states.

Question: I think our readers would be interested to hear first-hand what the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is all about, including what countries are represented in it and how Russia participates in its work.

Maxim Musikhin: The CLCS is a body established in accordance with Annex II to the 1982 Convention. It consists of 21 members who must be experts in geology, geophysics or hydrography. These representatives are elected by the countries that are parties to the Convention from among their nationals on the basis of equitable geographical representation. However, the elected members of the Commission act in their personal capacity, i.e. they must not, working in the Commission, promote the interests of the countries that nominated them. They must be impartial when considering country submission for an ‘extended’ continental shelf.

A country that has made a submission to the Commission makes its initial presentation before all Commission members. Following that, the Commission members establish what is known as a Sub-Commission to consider a particular submission. This Sub-Commission shall not include a Commission member who is a national of the country whose submission is under consideration.

Based on the results of the submission consideration, the Sub-Commission formulates its recommendations and submits them for approval to all Commission members who make the final decision.

Russian experts have been involved in the work of the Commission since its establishment. Yury Kazmin (1997-2012), a unique specialist with the background in geology and legal studies, which is an invaluable asset for someone who is working in the Commission, was a long-standing member of this body. He was succeeded by former State Secretary and Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Ivan Glumov (2012-2023).

Following his stint in the Commission, Yury Kazmin became a member of Russian delegations to make submissions to the Commission for an ‘extended’ continental shelf in the Okhotsk Sea and the Arctic Ocean, and Ivan Glumov was a scientific and technical consultant on Russia’s submissions for many years.

The contribution of these scholars to the work on upholding the interests of the Russian Federation concerning the ‘extended’ continental shelf cannot be overestimated.

Regrettably, Ivan Glumov passed away in December 2023 before completing his consecutive five-year term in the Commission. We are currently working to ensure continued participation of Russian experts in the Commission’s activities. By-election to this body will take place during the Meeting of States Parties to the 1982 Convention this June.

Question: You have been referring to the 1982 Convention. At the same time, there are periodic calls in our country to withdraw from this international treaty or at least terminate its use in the Arctic. How do our actions with regard to the steps and these statements align with each other?

Maxim Musikhin: First, the Russian Foreign Ministry makes public only official positions that have been coordinated at home. However, this does not mean that the professional or expert communities cannot have debates or differences of opinion.   

As for the proposals to withdraw from the Convention or stop implementing its provisions in certain geographical areas, there are many legal and practical subtleties involved.

The Convention includes a huge number of customary norms that are in effect as is, convention or no convention. It is called the Constitution of the Oceans for a reason. It is a comprehensive international treaty that ensures a balance of state interests in various activities in the Arctic. Even if we, hypothetically, withdraw from the Convention, most of its provisions will still need to be followed as part of international custom.

What is important is that in the current international landscape, the Convention guarantees freedom of navigation to Russian merchant and state-owned ships, as well as Russian warships. It also guarantees international recognition of the limits of internal waters, the territorial sea, and the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation, Russia’s maritime borders with adjacent and opposite states, as established by bilateral agreements, and its rights to living resources in this zone.

It is also impossible to stop implementing the Convention in the Arctic under the Law of Treaties. Many provisions that regulate particularly the use of the Northern Sea Route are also grounded in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Question: Speaking of the Arctic, it seems that our shelf interests clash with those of the United States precisely in that region. Do they actually have plans for the areas that could potentially be included in the Russian ‘extended’ shelf?

Maxim Musikhin: The US has laid claim to a number of areas with potential for an ‘extended’ shelf, but the most important areas from the point of view of Russia’s national interests are the Chukchi and Bering seas in the Arctic Ocean.

In both the Chukchi and Bering seas, the United States has claimed its right to areas beyond 200 nautical miles from the straight baselines used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea, but on its side of the delimitation line established by the 1990 USSR-USA Agreement on the Maritime Boundary. Article 2 of this document (ratified by the United States and provisionally applied by the Russian Federation) states: “…The maritime boundary extends north … through the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea into the Arctic Ocean as far as permitted under international law.” 

As I said, a nation’s right to the possession of the continental shelf is a norm of customary international law. Therefore, the phrase “as far as permitted under international law” could be interpreted as including the hypothetical continental shelf boundary between the two states. While there are no problems, in this case, with the 200-mile shelf zone, the ‘extended’ shelf issue creates legal uncertainty. Once again, we encounter the issue of the United States not complying with the procedure for confirming that a seabed area belongs to the geological continental shelf.

The same problem arises in other regions of the World Ocean, where the US has bilateral agreements on maritime delimitation with neighbouring countries. By taking unilateral actions, Washington effectively takes considerable zones of international seabed (the Area) away from other states and the entire international community. Under the 1982 Convention, the Area is the common heritage of mankind enjoying a special international legal regime. This regime implies that states producing mineral resources in the Area should make payments to the International Seabed Authority, which will then distribute these funds.

Question: If the actions of the US interfere with the interests of the entire international community, why was the Russian Federation alone in protesting against them?

Maxim Musikhin: First, we were not alone. As I said, a similar statement was made by the Chinese delegation to the 29th session of the International Seabed Authority Council this March.  On April 2, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson told a news conference: “The United States, as a country that has failed to join the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, has no right, under the Convention, to lay claim to an ‘extended’ continental shelf.” He added that Washington’s claims were unlawful and null and void as they “undermine the interests of the international community.”

It is possible that there will be statements from other states. It has not been long since the US made the announcement on its shelf limits for a diplomatic response to take shape. It is likely that some states are still examining the US claims and will formulate their position later.

Naturally, there are certain countries, like the Arctic states, that are hesitant to antagonise the hegemonic world power. We can’t expect Canada, for example, whose interests are affected the most by the US actions, to publicly express its grievances.  Under the current circumstances, America’s satellites are ready to sacrifice even their interests so as to ingratiate themselves with their master.

In the past, the so-called Arctic Five (Russia, Denmark, Canada, Norway, and the United States) jointly discussed problems related to the continental shelf, removed concerns, and informed each other about steps they were planning to take.

Now this mechanism is no longer in place, with Arctic contacts curtailed, and not at our initiative. It’s not our problem. In fact, the US and other Western members of the Arctic Five have voluntarily deprived themselves of the opportunity to discuss these important matters in a confidential manner. Russia has received several sets of recommendations from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. As you can imagine, Russia has more experience of working with the Commission than the other Arctic states. 

Question: Mr Musikhin, you just mentioned Russia’s record of dealing with the CLCS. Could you tell us in conclusion what has been done to expand Russia’s continental shelf and what is being planned for the future in this regard?

Maxim Musikhin: The Russian Federation consistently fulfils its obligations under the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and follows all the procedures it has envisaged to justify the extension of its Arctic shelf limits.

Russia made its first submission to the CLCS back in 2001. It was the trail-blazer in this regard. The CLCS issued its recommendations on the submission in 2002. Based on these recommendations, we delimited the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile zone in the Barents Sea with Norway in 2010, and used new scientific data to draft two partial revised submissions in respect of the Okhotsk Sea and the Arctic Ocean in 2013 and 2015, respectively.

In 2014, the CLCS issued positive recommendations on Russian submission in respect of the Okhotsk Sea. Based on these, the seabed in the central part of the Okhotsk Sea was included in the continental shelf of the Russian Federation. In practice, this means that no other state can engage in mineral production in the central Okhotsk Sea without Russia’s consent. The same applies to the so-called “sedentary species” of seabed living resources, including various species of crabs.

The CLCS’s first meeting on the Russian submission in respect of the Arctic Ocean took place in February 2016. Considering the comprehensive nature of our submission and the vast seabed areas to which it applied, it took the Commission more than seven years to consider it. 

The Russian inter-agency delegation, led by the Ministry of Natural Resources, has repeatedly submitted new scientific data to support the Russian claims.

The outcome of this painstaking work was certainly worth the effort. In 2023, despite the increasingly tense geopolitical situation, the Russian delegation led by Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Alexander Kozlov was able to ensure the CLCS’s positive recommendations on the Russian partial revised submission in respect of the Arctic Ocean of 2015 and two Annexes thereto. 

This is not the final result, of course. The CLCS still needs to consider the partial revised submission on the continental shelf in the Gakkel Ridge area, made on October 30, 2023. When conditions are suitable, agreement shall be reached on the final delimitation of the ‘extended’ continental shelf with neighbouring countries in the Arctic.