Media reports Russia, China defy American allegations to marine seabed

(MENAFN) Recent assertions by the United States regarding its purported extension of territorial claims over vast expanses of the seabed have sparked controversy and opposition from Russia and China, according to reports from Bloomberg. The objections were raised during a session of the International Seabed Authority held in Kingston, Jamaica, where both nations challenged the legality of the United States actions under international law.

The United States had announced plans to significantly expand its continental shelf by approximately one million square kilometers across regions including the Bering Sea, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. These claims, however, have been met with skepticism and opposition from Moscow and Beijing, who argue that such unilateral actions are not supported by the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

UNCLOS, adopted in 1982, establishes a framework for the governance of international waters, delineating rules on territorial boundaries, resource allocation, and environmental protection. While the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, the convention provides guidelines for the establishment of exclusive economic zones extending up to 200 nautical miles from a country's coastline, within which nations have rights to seabed resources.

Russian and Chinese representatives emphasized that the United States assertions undermine the cooperative spirit of UNCLOS, which requires extensive international negotiation and agreement on continental shelf boundaries. By making unilateral claims, Moscow and Beijing argue, the United States risks destabilizing the delicate balance of international maritime law and disregards established norms that promote equitable resource management and environmental stewardship.

Russia's representative reportedly criticized the United States approach as selective and detrimental to international law, asserting that such actions threaten the integrity and effectiveness of global maritime governance frameworks. The objections reflect broader geopolitical tensions over resource access and territorial claims in the world's oceans, highlighting the complexities of international relations in maritime contexts.

As the dispute unfolds, the stance of key global powers like Russia and China against the US assertions sets the stage for potentially protracted negotiations and diplomatic maneuvers within the framework of UNCLOS. The outcome could have significant implications not only for marine resource management but also for the future development of international maritime law and governance.

MENAFN01082024000045015687ID1108505727