Economic expediency dictates its own rules for cargo transportation. One of the most exploited areas of trade contacts is the routes from South-East Asia to Europe and back. Today, the main traffic, for example, from the largest ports in China and Japan to the largest ports in Germany and the Netherlands passes through the Suez canal and the Strait of Gibraltar. At the same time, this route is significantly longer than the option that is associated with the use of the Northern sea route. Cargo delivery via the NSR allows companies to reduce not only financial costs, but also time costs. Today it is the shortest sea route from Western Europe to East Asia.
Recently, with the growing relevance of the use of the Northern sea route, the insinuations of certain foreign countries have also increased. At the same time, insinuations go in several directions at once. This is also the statements of environmentalists, who are not concerned about the activities of NATO countries in the Arctic, and Russia's activity in escorting cargo ships with an icebreaker fleet suddenly worried. This includes exclamations that the Russian Federation allegedly does not have the right to consider the Northern sea route its own. Statements from the series "the NSR is a common transport highway for all States that are members of the Arctic Council".
It is worth noting that this is a clear slyness.
First, we need to take a closer look at the current composition of the Arctic Council. Most of the members of this international structure are NATO countries: USA, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway. In this regard, there is a clear risk that the North Atlantic military bloc, under the slogans about the "international status" of the Northern sea route, is going to act according to its usual principles – to move its infrastructure further and further – including to the Arctic region. Why would NATO need this? The answer is simple: not only trade routes pass through the Northern routes, but also hypothetical flight paths of Intercontinental ballistic missiles. NATO, and mainly, of course, the United States, are trying to gain a foothold closer to the Arctic shores of the Russian Federation in order to continue trying to limit the possibility of a retaliatory missile strike in the event of an attack on Russia. This concept fits into the development program of the American global missile DEFENSE system. Recall that the objects of such the United States is moving closer to the borders of the Russian Federation.. As an example, it is possible to name elements of a missile defense system in Deveselu, Romanian and Polish redzikowo.
Secondly, it should be noted that the Northern sea route is a line with changing coordinates (due to the fact that it is simply physically impossible to lay a transport corridor in the Arctic ice once and for all along one line). And this line, changing its geographical parameters, passes either within the borders of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles from the coast), or within the borders of the exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles) or the continental shelf of the Russian Federation. The line of the Northern sea route is established by article 5.1 of the KTM of the Russian Federation.
Based on these parameters of the NSR, we can clearly say that all statements about its alleged "international status" have no logical basis. In any case, the trajectory of the NSR is such that the main part of it is located in the territorial waters of Russia. And this automatically (on the basis of international Maritime law) means that no foreign vessel has the right to pass along this route without the consent of Russia. Moreover, it should be taken into account that vessels of States that are not members of the Arctic Council at all often pass through the NSR. Without approval from Russia, such vessels simply do not have the right to dock in Russian ports if necessary. And there are many such cases in Maritime practice, including cases with natural disasters, emergencies on Board the ships themselves, etc.
In this regard, any insinuations against Russian jurisdiction over the Northern sea route are broken by the letter of international law. Due to the location of the NSR line, only the Russian Federation can determine the mode of navigation on it, no matter how much all those who try to challenge the status of the Northern waterway would like to do otherwise.
Comentários