- by Graham Holton
- The Guardian
- Issue #2117
Photo: Famartin – Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
On 19 December 2023 the US State Department quietly announced it had extended the territory of the United States by 1 million square kilometres, an area twice the size of California. For over 20 years the State Department had led a multi-agency collaboration that included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Geological Survey, and 11 other agencies, collating geological data to define the extent of US offshore territory. The Department of Defense, resource industry leaders, and environmental NGOs advocated the research and mapping surveys.
The US claims the Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) in seven areas: the Arctic, the Atlantic coast, the Bering Sea, west Pacific coast, Mariana Islands, and two areas off Mexico. The claims cover fishing and sea floor mineral resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars, including 90 billion barrels of oil. In a show of imperialist power, the US has grabbed enormous wealth without firing a shot.
Under international law countries can claim their continental shelves to manage and exploit their resources. This is divided into the territorial sea, the area adjacent to a coastal state’s land territory, which extends 22 kilometres out from the coastal baselines. Beyond this the ECS is the area of seabed that surrounds the continent, where the sea is shallower than the deep ocean. The ECS is the furthest extent of the continental shelf, called the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), within the 200 nautical mile limit.
While the US has a history of complaining when nations extended their fishing limits to the 200-nautical mile limit, it has extended its own territorial claims a number of times. In 1976 Congress extended US territorial limits under the Magnuson Act. In 1983 President Ronald Reagan proclaimed an EEZ citing “international law,” without naming the actual treaty. This latest claim extends US territory even further, increasing US jurisdiction supposedly in order to protect marine ecosystems and enforce environmental regulations.
The US did not ratify the 1994 United Nations Convention of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Law of the Sea Treaty, despite playing a role in drafting it. Under UNCLOS a country submits its proposed delimitation to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for review and recommendations, and “the limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be final and binding.” Not being a member could limit the US international claim, which overlaps with Canada’s in the Arctic Ocean.
The US claims raise a number of problems and questions under international law. According to Rebecca Pincus, the director of the Polar Institute of the Wilson Center: “It was a very unconventional and surprising move.” US federal law requires an environmental impact assessment before any major federal authorised action begins in US territory. This means an executive order could deny economic exploitation of such areas. Joe Biden and Barack Obama tried to eliminate all hydrocarbon exploration on federal lands in the offshore Arctic. Many environmental groups want to eliminate seabed mining, shipping, and fishing in the Arctic Ocean. Ten nations have signed the 2018 Central Arctic Fisheries Agreement. How will the US claim affect the Agreement? The Alaska Federation of Natives complains that decisions have been made without their input. These claims may rekindle arguments about revenue sharing and local and traditional knowledge input on decision-making about oil and gas production.
Mead Treadwell, Co-Chair of the Advisory Committee of the Polar Institute of the Center, says the claim will “raise some eyebrows.” China could reciprocate with its own claims in the South China Sea concerning the Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan. Can the claim extend from the ocean floor to the seas above and thereby restrict shipping in the Arctic? Moving US territory north will extend the US border northwards. What will be the reaction from its Arctic neighbours, especially over mining rights?
Claims over the Arctic Ocean floor by various countries overlap and the borders are different on each treaty. Russia claims nearly 45 per cent of the Arctic floor, and the US claim may set off further conflict. The Wilson Center believes that the US does not need to negotiate with Russia, as “each country has delineated the outer limit of its continental shelf consistent with the boundary established in 1990 in the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary.”
President Vladimir Putin may consider an agreement signed by the USSR irrelevant, especially under the current political climate with the Ukraine Conflict heating up.
The Wilson Center says: “The United States is a major maritime nation with the largest exclusive economic zone in the world, and this historic step helps protect its sovereign rights to vast additional subsea areas.” This means US corporations can now explore and exploit along the continental shelves, knowing they are in US controlled waters. In April 2024 President Biden announced sweeping plans to block Arctic oil drilling. This will change if Trump becomes president. The ECS potentially hands billions of dollars to US corporations, in a land grab once typical of the 19th century. How long before US neighbours push back, especially when it directly effects Russia?
