CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

WHAT IS THE LEGAL REGIME OF THE ARCTIC? Convention on the Law of the Sea. This view, however, should be specified in that sense that the Presidential Directive of the US President of 9 January 2009 says that the most effective way to achieve international recognition and legal certainty for the US extended continental shelf is through the procedure available to States Parties to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 23 Vylegzhanin 24 also states that in the document of the President of Russia of 2008 which refers to policy in the Arctic there is only a reference to the international law in general and not specifically to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Some opinions direct themselves to the possibility of inspiration from the legal regime in Antarctica. For example, Morrison, a Canadian internationalist, pointed to this possibility in view of the comparable physical conditions and the regime based on the Antarctic Treaty. Morrison also claims that representatives of the Arctic states did not favour the application of the concept of the common heritage of mankind in this respect. 25 When comparison with Antarctica is made and some common features are seen, we can sometimes hear the argument that, when there is a special AntarcticTreaty, there is a need for a special treaty on the Arctic. 26 However, we should admit a significant difference between the two polar regions – Antarctica is land, a continent, while the Arctic is sea, an ocean. This has large legal and political consequences. International legal norms that apply to land territory and to sea regions are fundamentally different. 27 On the other hand, this does not exclude inspiration derived from the Antarctic Treaty system. For example, the protection of the sea environment, which exists in the Antarctic region, or a certain inspiration from the mechanism which regulates activity in Antarctica. Vylegzhanin 28 points out that the legal regime in the Arctic and in the Arctic Ocean is not regulated only by the norms of international law of the sea and certainly not only by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. He states, however, that it is not impossible for the states to extend the application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to the Arctic Ocean. He mentions the work of several authors which contains a chapter devoted to the Arctic which is not in the part about the international law of the sea. In this connection it is necessary to mention that comprehensive reviews of international public law in the form of textbooks and monographs etc. do not always include special reference to the legal regime of the Arctic. When the authors refer to the Arctic at all, they are mostly concerned with the 23 National Security Presidental Directive/NSPD – 66 Homeland Security Presidental Directive/HSPD – 25, January 9, 2009. 24 Vylegzhanin, A. N., Developing International Law Teachings for Preventing Inter-State Disaccord in the Arctic Ocean. 2009, ZaoRV 69/3, p. 670. 25 Morrison in: Vylegzhanin, A. N., op.cit. , p. 672. 26 Concepts in: Winkler, T., op.cit. , p. 642. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. , p. 672.

101