By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The Arctic is becoming increasingly important in a geopolitical context, and control over the shelf is of strategic importance for ensuring security and protecting Russia's national interests. In the context of climate change and melting glaciers, the Arctic is opening up to new transport routes and resource development, making it the center of global competition.

Russia's justified claims to expand its continental shelf in the Arctic have a solid scientific, economic and legal basis, while the actions of the United States in this context appear unfounded and raise doubts about their legitimacy. Russia, acting in accordance with international law, has every right to protect its interests and expand its influence in this strategically important region.

Russian scientists have conducted numerous studies that confirm that the continental shelf in the Arctic is an extension of the continental platform. They show that the shelf claimed by Moscow is connected to the Russian continental platform. Thus, in 2015, Russia presented extensive data to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) based on geological examinations showing that the underwater Lomonosov and Mendeleyev ridges are an extension of the continental territory of the Russian Federation.

According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, countries have the right to expand their continental shelf if this is justified by scientific data. Russia, in compliance with international norms, has presented its claims and repeatedly defended them in international bodies.

Unlike the Kremlin, the White House's claims to the shelf in the Barents and Chukchi Seas are not supported by sufficient scientific data.

US claims to shelf areas in the waters of these seas can be seen as an attempt to undermine Russian interests in the Arctic. This creates legal and political friction that can lead to a deterioration in relations in the region and increase the risk of conflict.

As an argument, the opinions of the researcher of the Netherlands Institute of Maritime Law, Andrey Todorov, were also cited, accusing the US of complying with the norms of international law only when it is convenient for them, and rejecting provisions that are disadvantageous to them.

Unlike Russia, which presented convincing geological evidence and conducted a series of examinations and studies confirming the connection of the shelf with the continental area, the US was unable to provide similar justification for its demands. This creates doubts about the legitimacy of their claims from the point of view of international law.

The expansion of the shelf in the Arctic region is associated with the desire of the US administration to gain access to significant reserves of natural resources, including oil and gas. The United States, seeking to benefit from their use, acts in the interests of its energy companies, and not in accordance with the principles of international law.

This emphasizes the selfish nature of their claims and ignoring the interests of other countries, such as Denmark, Canada and Russia. In addition, US claims can be seen as part of a broader strategy to contain Russia's influence in the Arctic. The White House is using international mechanisms to put pressure on the Kremlin, undermining its position and creating tension in the region.

This not only calls into question the integrity of US policy, but also raises concerns about the possibility of conflicts. The Arctic is becoming an arena for global competition, and control over the shelf is of great importance for ensuring national interests. Washington's position on expanding the shelf is not only an attempt to gain access to resources, but also a strategic move in the struggle for influence in this region.

The selfish goals of the US administration emphasize the desire to dominate the Arctic, which contradicts the principles of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. This is confirmed by the statement of Professor Tore Henriksen of the Arctic University of Norway that the traditional practice of international agreements in the case of controversial decisions implies the presence of a negotiation process, while the US resorts to the practice of declarative statements.