Another arbitration case

There were jokes yesterday about Santa Claus shooing away all claimants to the North Pole, after Denmark filed a formal claim to a large section of the Arctic Circle.

But joking aside, our country should be taking a special interest in this territorial dispute, since the case is being settled before the United Nations.

In 2008, claimants Canada and Russia agreed that the dispute must be settled based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States cannot join the case because it has not ratified the UNCLOS. Norway is also not pursuing a claim.

Denmark also agrees that resolution should be based on UNCLOS – the same convention that our government has invoked in seeking from a UN arbitral tribunal a definition of Philippine maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. We recently got formal support from Vietnam in this case.

In its claim, Denmark argues that an area approximately 20 times its size around the North Pole is connected to the continental shelf of its autonomous territory, Greenland.

Shades of the South China Sea: some 4,200 meters on the seabed beneath the pole, there’s a rustproof titanium Russian flag planted by one of Moscow’s submarines in 2007.

As in the South China Sea, the area being claimed is also believed to be rich in mineral resources. More than the South China Sea, up to 22 percent of the planet’s recoverable oil and natural gas is believed to lie north of the Arctic Circle, according to a 2008 review conducted by the US Geological Survey.

China has no Arctic coast, but its position is that no country has sovereignty over the Arctic. In 2010, Chinese Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo was quoted by the official China News Service as saying, “China must play an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the world’s population.”

Maybe Beijing can release a map of China with a 20-dash line covering the Arctic Circle.

*   *   *

The stakes are nothing to sneeze at: about 90 billion barrels of oil are believed to be sitting under just 500 meters of water. Polar ice discouraged oil and natural gas exploration in the area. Now global warming is opening up not only sea passages through the Arctic but also opportunities for reaching those precious resources.

Some years ago when I visited Iceland and Greenland, guides pointed out vast stretches of mountain slopes exposed as glaciers melted. Native fishing communities complained of dwindling catch as the sea temperature rose and icebergs shrank. But the melting ice is also fueling a race for Arctic resources.

Our maritime territorial claim is not exactly the same, but we might reach the same point. The Arctic case is before the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Canada, Denmark and Russia are claiming areas beyond their 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as provided under UNCLOS, but within their respective continental shelves.

Whichever country is deemed to have jurisdiction over the disputed area will have exclusive economic rights over the resources.

Claimants must submit evidence documenting the limits of their continental shelf beyond the 200-mile EEZ. The submissions of the Arctic claimants are not yet complete.

In our case, we may not have the capability for that kind of documentation, but China might – and we should be prepared to challenge claims invoking the continental shelf. A French diplomat who has studied the issue thoroughly warned me several years ago that our government must pay more attention to this complex issue.

*   *   *

What the battle over the North Pole shows is that the Philippine approach to settling a territorial dispute is not unique.

A case that is closer to ours is the dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar, which was also brought before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Bangladesh brought the dispute, which had simmered for 38 years, to the UN tribunal in 2009. A final verdict, which cannot be appealed, was handed down on March 14, 2012. Voting 21 to 1, the tribunal awarded Bangladesh 111,000 square kilometers of EEZ – nearly the same size as the country itself – in the Bay of Bengal, plus 12 miles of territorial waters around St. Martin’s Island.

The case apparently inspired Manila to take the same route. The difference is that Myanmar bowed to the verdict of the tribunal, while China – a signatory to UNCLOS like the Philippines – has refused to recognize international arbitration.

Tribunal rules stipulate that China will be presented the Philippine case anyway and given a chance to respond. If Beijing refuses to answer, arbitration will proceed and a verdict will be handed down within a specified period. This is expected next year.

If China wants to be seen as a responsible player on the world stage, befitting its new status as the second largest economy, it must abide by international rules. Those who want a strong voice in global affairs must play by the rules of the world community.

Beijing’s actions in connection with its surrounding waters are being watched for indications of its behavior on the world stage. Any nation aiming for global leadership cannot flout international rules.