As global energy prices rise placing greater and greater pressure on the international economy, the development of traditional methods of energy production in non-traditional areas has become of paramount importance to many of the world’s most powerful nations. The five countries that border the arctic, Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark (through Greenland) and The United States have the greatest stake in the success of arctic mapping and exploration. All five of these nations have invested in exploring the area and solidifying and proving what claims they have or think they deserve. Russia has been the most aggressive in its endeavors, with its intent clearly signaled by the highly publicized flag planting on the floor of the Arctic in August of 2007. The Russians have furthered their attempt to stake claims in more civil manors by using aquatic geo-mapping technology to enlarge the area to its north that is accepted as part of the Russian continental shelf. The supreme international regulation concerning arctic exploration is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas. Under this set of laws, nations bordering the arctic are entitled to exclusive economic rights 200 nautical miles from the edge of their continental shelves. If Russia can prove that its continental shelf is larger than what was originally accepted, it will gain the economic rights to the areas acquired extending 200 nautical miles from the new continental shelf edge. Under the United Nations compact, any arctic nation has until 2009 to prove any claims on international seabed. The nation that wishes to extend its area of control must prove to an independent council of the United Nations through geographical and geo-terrestrial evidence that its continental shelf ranges further than accepted boundaries. The most imposing territorial problem to date lies with the Lomonosov ridge. The 1240-mile underwater mountain range extends from Siberia to Canada. Its massive size brings opportunity for Canada, Russia, and Denmark to claim the Lomonosov ridge as an extension of their own continental shelves. The race for arctic rights promises to bring about instability in geo-political relations. Russia has far and away been the leader in this race. It has geared up for arctic exploration by expanding its coastal fleet to include 20 new icebreakers to navigate the arctic waters.
Russia’s attempt at arctic dominance is not a new tactic in geopolitics. In the 1950’s, President Eisenhower knew the importance of monitoring The Soviet Union’s technological and military advances as a matter of American national security. He could not find a legal precedence that would justify the launch of a spy satellite over a sovereign nation. To circumvent this legal snafu, Eisenhower approached the American Jet propulsion/naval research lab. He asked for the development of a research satellite. This legal name avoided the geopolitical complications that accompany a spy satellite while still achieving the intent of launching a spy satellite. Eisenhower used the guise of scientific exploration to avoid global suspicion and dissent to his intelligence project. Although his legal justification was shaky, Eisenhower’s innovative thinking allowed him to push forward American intelligence interests. The technology developed in this project brought about the creation of NASA and gave the U.S. intelligence capabilities that eventually caused the end of the Cold War.
Today’s situation in the arctic may be the most crucial international dispute of our time. The position that the five arctic countries are in is quite similar to that of Eisenhower in the 1950’s. The arctic is contested so hotly for one reason: oil and natural gas. Quite simply, these nations know how lucrative rights in the area may be. The best interest of these countries lies in extending their rights in the arctic. Russia shows the best example of creative thinking in its attempt to further its claim on the arctic. Russia’s claim based on the extension of the Lomonosov ridge is shaky in its credibility at best. The simple fact that Canada and Denmark would also have claims on the ridge furthers the improbability that an independent geological survey would rule in favor of Russia’s claim. Russia’s leaders have taken to heart the importance of winning the arctic. The mix of incredible audacity and pretentiousness shown in planting a flag on the floor of the arctic ocean displays Russia’s commitment to this fight. The ingenuity of Russia’s plan, although it lacks strong scientific basis, displays the exact kind of creativity shown by Eisenhower. As history has shown, this creativity may be the edge needed to gain an advantage in the race for the arctic.
The United States finds itself in a weaker position concerning the arctic. With a thinly spread military, the U.S. cannot put as much geopolitical pressure on its rivals in the arctic race. America’s exclusion from claims to the Lomonosov ridge further deprecates the already delicate situation it is in. Just as Eisenhower showed creative thinking in the 1950’s, so too does the America of today need to show ingenuity if it wishes to maintain any hopes of claiming part of the arctic and its resources. One fringe idea to further America’s interest in the arctic is to extrapolate the use of national law on an international playing field. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas is not binding for the U.S. because American officials were not signers of the original charter. This exemption allows more room to maneuver legally. As shown earlier in the case of Clark vs. Nash, procedure in determining the power of eminent domain may change on a case-by-case basis. This is often seen in cases dealing with natural resources. The current condition of the arctic may very well fall into this category. The vast amounts of natural resources, its vague state of ownership, and its contested state of economic influence are all compelling arguments that the arctic should fall under the provisions of Clark vs. Nash. These special circumstances would allow the American government to take a firmer stance on the issue of arctic dominance. Several major issues come into play in this scenario:
1. The stance that the arctic regions in question “are the territory of the United States” would be taken. No laws currently prevent the U.S. from taking this action. This concept is a necessary postulate in the legal reasoning of this plan.
2. Since the official American stance would be that sections of the arctic “are part of the country”, America would have complete control over that land’s use. To uphold international relations, the official stance could be that “these areas of the arctic have always been part of the United States, and have been provisionally governed by the U.N. law of the seas due to the area’s geographic isolation.” Since the U.S. never signed this compact, it is in no way bound to follow its rules.
3. Eminent domain can be defined as “ the state’s power to acquire all lands within the state to further the best interest of the state and its people.” Since, according to the U.S. , the arctic lands would indeed be part of the American state, the U.S. would have the right to expropriate the land and its economic rights.
The above plan would likely draw laughter from any constitutional scholar. However, this type of creative thinking is what is needed to win the race in the arctic. The idea is no more ridiculous that Russia’s exclusive claim on a range that runs through three sovereign nations. The extrapolation of legal power is necessary to combat Russia’s aggressive attempt to control the arctic. The special circumstances surrounding the race for the arctic necessitate an aggressive strategy from the American government. The fact that competing nations will be aggressive too negates any scruples the government or its people should have about intruding on the arctic. This land is just as much America’s as anybody else’s. The deciding factor in this race will be the willingness of nations to be bold and creative in their plans and actions. With the rewards so great, America cannot afford to be sluggish in a contest it is already losing. The above reasoning provides a foundation that is firm enough to stand upon. Although it may not be entirely correct, it is necessary in these extenuating circumstances. In this race for arctic energy, those who are timid may be the ones left out in the cold. For this reason, America should not overstep its legal boundaries, but increase those boundaries and then step within them. This boldness is the same kind displayed by Eisenhower nearly six decades ago. It is of paramount importance that the U.S. attends to its own interests in this situation, for the well being of its citizens, its security, its economy, and its future.
