LEGAL BEATIs the U.S. Prepared Legally & Operationally to protect itsArct cInterests JAMES B. ELLIS II JOAN M. BONDAREFFhe answer to this question is a resounding “no.” The U.S. is not prepared to protect its in-Tterests in the Arctic over the next decade. The primary legal regime that is being relied upon by all members of the Arctic fraternity, the Law of the Sea Convention, has not been adopted by the U.S. The operational resources needed to pursue our interests have not been funded and there is currently little prospect that they will be funded in the near future. U.S. interests in the Arctic are vast. They include oil and gas, ship-ping, environmental concerns, climate change, and the rights and interests of Alaskan native communities. The article describes why we are so unprepared.A Legal Regime for the ArcticThe U.S. is one of eight member na-tions of the Arctic Council. The others are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and Sweden. Next year, the U.S. takes over as Chair of the Council. But the Arctic Council is a voluntary organization with few resources to implement or monitor House Transportation and Infrastructure Further delay serves no purpose and de- its claim to an expanded continental shelf its own guidelines. It has no formal trea- (“T&I”) Committee on July 23, 2014, prives the United States of the signi? cant as have Norway, Denmark and Canada. ty status and no enforcement authority. Ambassador David Balton, Deputy As- economic and national security bene? ts The U.S. can only observe and protest The only international framework that sistant Secretary of State for Oceans and we will gain by becoming a Party to the publically to other nations’ claims with presently applies to claims and resolution Environment, echoed this view, stating, Convention.” which it may disagree. There is no in-of con? icts in the Arctic is the Law of “The United States could signi? cantly ternational forum in which the U.S. can the Sea Convention. As then-U.S. Coast advance our national security interests Why the Law of the Sea Convention? currently bring a legal challenge. With Guard Commandant ADM Robert Papp, in the Arctic by joining the Law of the It is only with rati? cation of the Con- the rapidly deteriorating relations be-Jr., testi? ed before the Senate Commit- Sea Convention. Notwithstanding the vention that the U.S. will have a formal tween the U.S. and Russia, it is foolish tee on Foreign Relations at a June 12, strong support of past administrations seat on the Commission on the Limits of to think that other members of the Arctic 2012 hearing, “[t]he Coast Guard needs (both Republican and Democratic), the the Continental Shelf established under community will stand up to protect U.S. the Convention to ensure America’s consistent backing of the military, and the Convention and be able to protect its interests with regard to Russian claims Arctic future.” Admiral Papp also stated the support of all relevant industries and claims to a vastly extended continental in the Arctic when they have their own that “[o]f the eight Arctic nations, only environmental groups, the Convention shelf of up to 600 miles containing po- interests to protect, and when the U.S. the U.S. is not a party to the Conven- remains a key piece of un? nished inter- tentially extensive oil and gas deposits. has not acted to protect its interests on tion.” Further, in testimony before the national business for the United States. The Russian Federation has already ? led its own. 24 Maritime Reporter & Engineering News • SEPTEMBER 2014MR #9 (18-25).indd 24 MR #9 (18-25).indd 24 9/3/2014 9:50:21 AM9/3/2014 9:50:21 AM