The Arctic Ocean under UNCLOS: Testing Lex Specialis and Regional Exceptionalism Claims

Öz

The Arctic Region has brought renewed attention to the limits of international law. This is largely due to increased maritime traffic, expanding access to natural resources, and growing strategic competition driven by climate-induced sea ice retreat. In this context, the central debate is whether the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) remains the general maritime legal regime in the Arctic. Alternatively, some argue that the region’s geographical and environmental characteristics require a special legal status (lex specialis). In particular, the positions of Canada on the Northwest Passage, Russia on the Northern Sea Route, and the United States on freedom of navigation make this debate visible through concrete state practice. This study examines the extent to which UNCLOS is applicable to the Arctic. It does so by focusing on claims regarding the region’s closed or semi-closed sea character, rules on ice-covered areas, and continental shelf claims. The article argues that the Arctic does not constitute an independent and comprehensive lex specialis regime within the existing international legal order. Rather, UNCLOS continues to serve as the primary legal framework governing navigation, environmental protection, and coastal State powers in the region. However, this applicability is shaped by limited and contextual adaptations that reflect the region’s environmental sensitivities and functional conditions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arctic Ocean
• lex specialis
• Regional Exceptionalism
• UNCLOS
• Law of the Sea

UNCLOS Kapsamında Arktik Okyanusu: Lex Specialis ve Bölgesel İstisnacılık İddialarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Arktik Bölgesi, uluslararası hukukun sınırlarına yeniden dikkat çekmiştir. Bu durum, büyük ölçüde artan deniz trafiği, doğal kaynaklara erişimin genişlemesi ve iklim kaynaklı deniz buzlarının geri çekilmesinin tetiklediği stratejik rekabetin artmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, temel tartışma konusu, Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi’nin (UNCLOS) Arktik’te genel deniz hukuku rejimi olarak kalıp kalmayacağıdır. Buna karşılık, bazıları bölgenin coğrafi ve çevresel özelliklerinin özel bir hukuki statü (lex specialis) gerektirdiğini savunmaktadır. Özellikle Kanada’nın Kuzeybatı Geçidi, Rusya’nın Kuzey Deniz Rotası ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin seyrüsefer serbestisine ilişkin tutumları, bu tartışmayı somut devlet uygulamaları üzerinden görünür kılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, UNCLOS’un Arktik’e ne ölçüde uygulanabilir olduğunu incelemektedir. Çalışma, bölgenin kapalı veya yarı kapalı deniz niteliğine ilişkin iddialara, buzla kaplı alanlara ilişkin kurallara ve kıta sahanlığı iddialarına odaklanarak bunu gerçekleştirmektedir. Makale, Arktik’in mevcut uluslararası hukuk düzeni içinde bağımsız ve bütüncül bir lex specialis rejimi oluşturmadığını savunmaktadır. Aksine, UNCLOS, bölgedeki seyrüsefer, çevre koruma ve kıyı devletlerinin yetkilerini düzenleyen birincil yasal çerçeve olarak işlevini sürdürmektedir. Ancak bu uygulanabilirlik, bölgenin çevresel hassasiyetlerini ve işlevsel koşullarını yansıtan sınırlı ve bağlamsal uyarlamalarla şekillenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arktik Okyanusu
• lex specialis
• Bölgesel İstisnacılık
• UNCLOS
• Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku

Kaynakça

1. The Arctic Sunrise Case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, ITLOS Order (22 November 2013).
2. Bartenstein, K. (2011). The “Arctic exception” in the law of the sea convention: A contribution to safer navigation in the Northwest Passage?. Ocean Development & International trade route Law, 42(1-2), 22-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2011.542104
3. British High Commission (1986). Diplomatic Note No. 90/86
4. Bryanski, G. (2011). Russia’s Putin says Arctic to Rival Suez. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/russias-putin-says-arctic-trade-route-to-rival-suez-idUSTRE78L5TC/
5. Byers, M. (2013). International law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press.
6. Churchill, R, Lowe, V. & Sander, A. (2022). The law of the sea. (4. Ed). Manchester University Press
7. Cinelli, C. (2011). The law of the sea and Artic Ocean. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 2(1), 4-24
8. Franckx, E. (2009). The legal regime of navigation in the Russian Arctic. Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 18(2), 327-342

9. Franckx, E. (2024). Navigational rights and freedoms in the polar regions. In Y. Tanaka, R. L. Johnstone & V. Ulfbeck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of polar law (pp. 103-123). Routledge.
10. Hough, P. (2013). International politics of the Arctic: Coming in from the cold. Routledge
11. Johnstone, R. L., Tanaka, Y & Ulfbeck V. (2024). Polar law as a burgeoning discipline. In Y. Tanaka, R. L. Johnstone, V. Ulfbeck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of polar law (pp. 63-84). Routledge
12. Killas, M. (1987). The legality of Canada’s claims to the waters of Arctic Archipelago. Ottawa Law Review, 19(1), 95-136
13. Koskenniemi, M. (2006). Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law (Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682). United Nations.
14. Lalonde, S. & Schofield, C. (2024). Challenges relating to baselines in Polar regions. In Y. Tanaka, R. L. Johnstone & V. Ulfbeck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of polar law (pp. 47-62). Routledge.
15. Lalonde, S. & McDorman, T.L. (2024). The jurisdiction of coastal states in ice-covered waters. In Y. Tanaka, R. L. Johnstone, V. Ulfbeck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of polar law (pp. 84-102). Routledge.
16. Loukacheva, N. (2020). The Arctic Council and “law-making”. The Northern Review, 50, 109-135.
17. Magnússon, B. M. & Árnadóttir, S. (2024). Maritime boundary delimitation in the polar region. In Y. Tanaka, R. L. Johnstone & V. Ulfbeck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of polar law (pp. 63-84). Routledge.
18. McDorman, T. L. (2009). The continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles: Law and politics in the Arctic Ocean. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 23(2), 155-176.
19. Molenaar, E. J. (2012). Arctic fisheris and international law: Gaps and options to address them. Carbon&Climate Law Review, 6(1), 63-77.
20. Nadarajah, H. (2020). Prevalence of soft law in the Arctic. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 12(1), 285 307. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_012010018
21. Norchi, C. H. & Lynch, A. H. (2022). Arctic navigation and climate change: Projections from science for the Law of the Sea. International Law Studies, 99, 491-516.
22. Pharand, D. (2007). The Arctic waters and the Northwest Passage: A final revisit. Ocean Development & International Law, 38(1-2), 3-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320601071314
23. Pharand, D. (1973). The law of the sea of the Arctic. University of Ottawa Press
24. Proelss, T & Müller, T. (2008). The legal regime of the Arctic Ocean. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 68, 651-687.
25. Roach, J. A. & Smith, R. W. (2012). Excessive maritime claims (3. Ed). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
26. Rossi, C. R. (2015). The club within club: The challenge of a soft law framework in a global Arctic context. The Polar Journal, 5(1), 8-34.
27. Rothwell, D. R. (2013). The law of the sea and Arctic governance. Proceeding of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 107(3), 272-275. https://doi.org/10.5305/procannmeetasil.107. 0272.
28. Rothwell, D. R. (1996). The polar regions and the development of international law. Cambridge University Press.
29. Scovazzi, T. (2001). The baseline of the territorial sea: The practice of Arctic states. In A. G. Elferink & D. R. Rothwell (Eds), The law of the sea and polar maritime delimitation and jurisdiction. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
30. Solski, J. J. (2021). The genesis of Article 234 of UNCLOS. Ocean Development & International Law, 52(1), 1-19.
31. Solski, J. J. (2021). The ‘due regard’ of Article 234 of UNCLOS: Lessons from regulating innocent passage in the territorial sea. Ocean Development & International Law, 52(4), 398-418.
32. Statement in the house of commons by the secretary of state for external affairs (1985). Provided by: The Canadian Embassy, Washington, D.C., Reprinted: Canada: Statement concerning Arctic sovereignty, International Legal Materials, 24(6), 1723-1728.
33. Tanaka, Y., Johnstone, R. L. & Ulfbeck V. (2024). The Routledge handbook of polar law. Routledge.
34. Tanaka, Y., Johnstone, R. L. & Ulfbeck V. (2024). Polar legal system. In Y. Tanaka, R. L. Johnstone & V. Ulfbeck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of polar law (pp. 84-102). Routledge.
35. Tanaka, Y. (2015). The international law of the sea. (2nd Ed). Cambridge University Press.
36. United States Department of State. (1992, September 3). United States responses to excessive national maritime claims (Limits in the Seas, No. 112). Office of Ocean Affairs. (Original work published 1985)
37. U.S. President. (1945). Policy of the United States with respect to the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf (Proclamation No. 2667).
38. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), (Dec. 10, 1982), 1833 U.N.T.S. 3.
39. Vigni, P. (2024). Territorial claims to Antarctica. In Y. Tanaka, R. L. Johnstone & V. Ulfbeck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of polar law (pp. 33-47). Routledge.
40. Young, O.R. (2005). Governing the Arctic: From cold war theater to mosaic of cooperation. Global Governance. 11(1), 9-15.