CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

JAN ONDŘEJ CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ no need, however, to be worried about military escalation which could lead to open armed conflict. It is evident that the application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 in the Arctic raises a number of questions. One of the main issues is the extension of the continental shelf of individual states beyond 200 nautical miles. In any case, Article 82, paragraph 1 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea clearly states that the coastal state shall make payments or contributions in kind with respect to the exploitation of the non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured 99 . These payments or contributions are, according to Article 82, paragraph 4, made through the International Seabed Authority, which shall distribute them. This leads us to the assumption that part of the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has the character of the seabed beyond the national jurisdictions of states (sovereignty), and the regime of the area and its resources have the character of the common heritage of mankind. (Article 136 and subsequent of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea). It is a specific regime created on the basis of the Convention which is realized on the basis of it. The Authority plays the important role of an organization which approves and checks all activities on the seabed and itself performs some of them. These aspects are to be taken into account in the future. The question of the common heritage of mankind in relation to the Arctic and also the role of the Authority arises. Another issue is the actual exploitation of the seabed under the Arctic ocean. According to Jazev 100 (the Russian Gas Association President and Vice- President of the Russian State Duma), Russia is not rushing with its exploitation in the Arctic and reckons that the gas from the deposits in the North Pole region will be used after 2030. According to him exploitation in the Arctic Ocean faces technological and legal problems. He states that „the question of delineation of Arctic zones has not been resolved. Several states, such as Russia, Canada, Norway and other countries, claim their part. Voices of other countries not bordering the Arctic are also heard saying that this territory is the common heritage of mankind“. 101 State-of-the-art technology will be necessary for the extreme conditions. Exploitation in the Arctic involves high costs. Jazev 102 estimates the cost of the extraction of gas to be at least 120 dollars per thousand cubic metres, which is about twice as much as what extraction costs today. 99 Art. 82 para. 2 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 . “The payments and contributions shall be made annually with respect to all production at a site after the first five years of production at that site. For the sixth year, the rate of payment or contribution shall be 1 per cent of the value or volume of production at the site. The rate shall increase by 1 per cent for each subsequent year until the twelfth year and shall remain at 7 per cent thereafter. Production does not include resources used in connection with exploitation.” 100 Rusko s těžbou ropy v Arktidě nespěchá. Je to drahé. Aktuálně.cz , from 5 November 2010. available at: http://aktualne.centrum.cz ( accessed on 22 July 2013).

118 101 Ibid . 102 Ibid .