Delimitation Game

DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2016-60-9-89-97

D. Tulupov, Saint-Petersburg State University, Smol’nogo Str. 1/3, Sankt-Petersburg, 191060, Russian Federation (

Abstract. On August 3, 2015, Russia passed its partially revised submission to the UN Commission on the limits of the continental shelf (CLCS), specifying its claim on the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. Consequently, a huge area of an overlap with Danish interests emerged, but its final contours will become eventually clear after publication of the Canadian submission to the CLCS, anticipated in the next few years. Being adherent to principles of the Ilulissat declaration 2008 these three stakeholder countries have to find a peaceful and mutually acceptable way for a resolution of emerging controversies over the Arctic shelf. CLCS has no last word here, because its authority is limited to delivering an expert assessment on whether a submission is well-founded or not. Thus, a final decision could be reached only through direct negotiations. This paper starts with the analysis of Russia’s 2015 submission to the CLCS and its perception by expert and political communities in the West. Then we proceed to formulation of the most likely scenario of negotiations on the Arctic shelf delimitation between Russia, Denmark and Canada by analyzing their core interests, positions and possible bargaining tactics. As the central part of the Arctic Ocean seems not well suited for sustainable economic use even in the long term, we assume that the countries’ aspirations for the continental shelf in this area are driven predominantly by considerations of political prestige and strategy. The most common tactical instrument in the contest for the Arctic shelf will be the tactics of increased demands. Denmark has already used it in the submission passed to the CLCS in December 2014. There are good reasons to expect that Canada will follow this way, too, by extending its claims not only on the Alpha ridge but also on the North Pole and Mendeleev ridge. In this case a second huge overlapping area in the Arctic Ocean will emerge. Russia has been much more modest in using the tactics of increased demands, as its 2015 CLCS claim demonstrates just tiny extensions in comparison with the initial CLCS claim submitted by the Russian Federation in December 2001. This indicates that Russian diplomacy is going to hold a firm line in the Arctic shelf delimitation, being ready to make only minimum concessions to Denmark and Canada. This hypothesis is supported by the analysis of relevant provisions contained in both versions of the Russian Arctic Strategy (2008 and 2013 editions), the Naval Doctrine of the Russian Federation 2015, as well as in public speeches of President V. Putin. Still, it is highly unlikely that harsh bargaining style will lead to a mutually acceptable solution. Instead, such solution should be a result of interest alignment and be considered as fair enough by all stakeholder states. A possible framework for compromise could be a neutralization of the North Pole, which will be selected as a focal point where all extended continental shelf zones are meeting together.

Keywords: Arctic, the Arctic Ocean, continental shelf, delimitation, diplomacy, negotiations, Russia, Denmark, Canada 


1. Strategy of the Russian Federation Arctic Zone Development and National Security Provision Until 2020 (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 08.12.2015).

2. Partial Submission of Canada to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Regarding its Continental Shelf in the Atlantic Ocean (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 12.02.2016).

3. Petrosyan A. An International Race for the Arctic? Try a Slow, Science-Driven Crawl. Newsweek, 18.09.2015. Available at: (accessed 11.02.2016).

4. Byers M. The North Pole is a Distraction. Globe and Mail, 20.08.2014. Available at: (accessed 11.02.2016).

5. Denmark: Notification Regarding the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 05.02.2002. Available at: (accessed 10.02.2016).

6. Canada: Notification Regarding the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 24.01.2002. Available at: (accessed 10.02.2016).

7. Norway: Notification Regarding the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 20.03.2002. Available at: (accessed 10.02.2016).

8. United States of America: Notification Regarding the Submission Made by the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 28.02.2002. Available at: LOS__USAtext.pdf (accessed: 10.02.2016).

9. Results of the Federal Agency for Subsurface Resources Management Performance have Formed the Basis of the Submission on the Expansion of Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean. Federal Agency for Mineral Resources, 05.08.2015. (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 10.12.2015).

10. Partial Revised Submission of the Russian Federation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in Respect of the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation in the Arctic Ocean (In Russ.) Available at: Exec_Summary_Russian.pdf (accessed 23.11.2015).

11. Yushkovskaya I. Zayavka na Arktiku [Claim for the Arctic]. Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 15.01.2015. Available at: (accessed 23.11.2015).

12. Brekke H. The Limits of the Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean. Newsletter of the Norwegian Scientific Academy for Polar Research, 12.06.2014. Available at: (accessed 25.11.2015).

13. Kristian Jensen om Nordpolen-strid: Vi kan kun vente. Ekstra Bladet, 17.08.2015. Available at: (accessed 03.12.2015).

14. Bildt C. The International Battle for Santa Claus’s House. Globe and Mail, 24.12.2014. Available at: (accessed 03.12.2015).

15. Seidelin M. Spændt klima kan forværre russisk og dansk kamp om Nordpolen. Politiken, 04.08.2015. Available at: (accessed 01.12.2015).

16. Olesen M.R. Common and Competing Interests. Arctic Security Matters. Jokela J. ed., ISSUE, Report no. 24, June 2015. Available at: (accessed 29.11.2015). 

17. Positive Signaler fra Russland I Arktis. Aftenposten, 05.08.2015. Available at: (accessed 10.12.2015).

18. Koivurova T., Käpylä J., Mikkola H. Continental Shelf Claims in the Arctic: Will Legal Procedure Survive the Growing Uncertainty? Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 06.08.2015, Briefing Paper no. 178. Available at: file:///C:/Users/%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9/Downloads/bp178%20(1).pdf (accessed 16.12.2015).

19. Brøndum K., Sørensen B. H. Danmarks krav i Arktis går helt til Ruslands søgrænse. Berlingske, 14.12.2014. Available at: (accessed 10.12.2015).

20. Nygaard A. Ekspert: Vi står over for svære forhandlinger med Rusland. Berlingske, 04.08.2015. Available at: (accessed 03.12.2015).

21. Mouritzen H. Danmark må tage Norden alvorligt. Udenrigs, September 2014, no. 2. Available at:  (accessed 04.12.2015).

22. Velfærdsstat i forsvarsposition. Information, 19.08.2013. Available at: (accessed 15.12.2015).

23. Mellander M., Mouritzen H. Danmark har brug for en ruslandsstrategi. Politiken, 19.08.2014. Available at: (accessed 15.12.2015).

24. Stampe Z. En realistisk og proaktiv udenrigspolitik. Berlingske, 20.09.2014. Available at: (accessed 13.12.2015).

25. Canada and Sweden Conclude Arctic Cooperation Agreement. Available at: (accessed 14.12.2015).

26. When one should Wait for UN’s Decision on the Russian Continental Shelf? (In Russ.) Available at: (accessed 05.12.2015).

27. Rahbek-Clemmensen J. Arktiske usikkerheder: fem trusler mod det fredelige samarbejde i det høje nord. Danish Institute of International Studies, September 2014, Report no. 20. Available at: (accessed 10.12.2015).

28. Udenrigsministeren om dansk Arktis-krav: Det her er en historisk milepæl. Politiken, 15.12.2014. Available at: (accessed 03.12.2015).

29. Naval Doctrine of the Russian Federation (In Russ.) 26.07.2015. Available at: (accessed 10.12.2015).

30. Proceedings of the Russian Federation Security Council on the Implementation of the State Policy in the Arctic (In Russ.) 22.04.2014. Available at: (accessed 09.12.2015).

31. Lobkovskii: Russian Claim for the Arctic Shelf is Favorable for Canada and Denmark (In Russ.) 04.08.2015. Available at: (accessed 09.12.2015). 

Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX

For citation:
Tulupov D. Delimitation Game. World Eonomy and International Relations, 2016, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 89-97.

Comments (0)

No comments

Add comment






Dear authors! Please note that in the VAK List of peer-reviewed scientific journals, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of candidate and doctor of sciences should be published for the “MEMO Journal” the following specialties are recorded:
economic sciences:
5.2.5. World Economy.
5.2.1. Economic Theory
5.2.3. Regional and Branch Economics
political sciences:
5.5.4. International Relations
5.5.1. History and Theory of Politics
5.5.2. Political Institutions, Processes, Technologies


Current Issue
2024, vol. 68, No. 6
Topical Themes of the Issue:
  • The “Pivot to Asia”: AUKUS in the Perception of American Politicum
  • The Collapse of the European Collective Security System
  • Public Investment and Sustainability of World Economy
  • Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends, Proportions and Factors of Development
Submit an Article
The Editorial Board invites authors to write analytical articles on the following topics:
  • changes in the processes of globalization in modern conditions
  • formation of the new world order
  • shifts in civilization at the stage of transition to a digital society

The editors are also interested in publishing synthesis articles / scientific reviews revealing the main trends in the development of certain regions of the world - Latin America, Africa, South Asia, etc.