The Limits of the Russian Continental Shelf: Myths, Reality, Ministerial Errors

After the change of presidents in Russia the interest to the issue of the limits of the continental shelf has increased due to several developments, which took place in this sphere. Apart from reality there are several myths conjured by mass media.In 2001 Russia has made a submission to the Commissi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Moscow Journal of International Law
Main Author: M. G. Melkov
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Russian
Published: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) 2008
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2008-4-119-132
https://doaj.org/article/f478cf1d18444ff28e3ad6b78cdee853
Description
Summary:After the change of presidents in Russia the interest to the issue of the limits of the continental shelf has increased due to several developments, which took place in this sphere. Apart from reality there are several myths conjured by mass media.In 2001 Russia has made a submission to the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf, which in its place made several recommendations in respect of the submission. Russia has conducted an extensive and expensive research on the Arctic basin to substantiate the claim according to the recommendations. Simultaneously delimitation negotiations were conducted with Norway and also there are issues with Japan in the Sea of Okhotsk.The author highly criticizes the position of the Ministry of natural resources and ecology and suggests that submission should be revocated. Further on the author points out myths related to the issue of the limits of continental shelf of Russia and particularly pinpoints rude mistakes of the media in this respect.In the article the author recommends to the Government of the Russian Federation to revocate its submission. Also he suggests starting negotiations with Canada on the delimitation of the continental shelves. Simultaneously such negotiations should be launched with Norway ad Denmark. The author provides a vigorous support for these recommendations and enumerates several reasons for the steps suggested by him.