Can the United Nations Do Anything?

Abstract

The persistent question of whether United Nations is doing good job, which simple-minded pollsters keep putting to their publics, puts issue upside down. The United Nations cannot do anything; only its members can. International institutions are not ends in themselves; they are means to ends. They are not self-propelled; they have to be used with wisdom and foresight by member states.John W Holmes, 1986'The above quotation by John Holmes - distinguished diplomat, esteemed author, much-loved teacher and mentor - continues to have relevance in examining and explaining purpose and value of United Nations. Moreover, given Holmes's passion for teaching through case studies, and his belief that Canada's growing importance in law of sea conferences was indicative of it becoming a country of increasing consequence in kind of world affairs that are beginning to matter most,2 it is fitting to consider his words with specific reference to international regime to delineate continental shelf extensions (i.e., continental shelf beyond usual limit of 200 nautical miles that belongs to adjacent coastal state).3 His comments forcefully convey several truths pertinent to understanding our case: that United Nations depends on political will of its members in order to act; that it is means to an end; and that its effectiveness requires wisdom and foresight of member states. What is not made explicit in quote is fact that UN is more than sum of its parts. By providing venues for interstate negotiations, as well as expertise and technical and secretarial assistance to facilitate states' work, UN is vital to creation and management of regime to delineate continental shelf extensions.The establishment and implementation of regime to delineate continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles is an effective vehicle for assessing wisdom of John Holmes's words for several reasons. The case spans four decades, from early 1970s to present. As such, it addresses periods before, during, and after Holmes penned his comments. Politically, case involves relations with our closest neighbours: United States, Russia, and Denmark (on behalf of Greenland). Furthermore, major economic interests are at stake for and its neighbours. The area is vast. According to Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada estimates that its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in Atlantic and Arctic Oceans covers approximately 1.75 million square kilometers (equal to three prairie provinces combined).4 The extension off Canada's east coast is known to contain rich deposits of oil and gas. Extensive deposits are also expected in Arctic. As Canada's continental shelf extensions are geographically concentrated off east coast and in Arctic, they have potential to affect voting behaviour.I begin with brief overview of regime to delineate continental shelf extensions. Thereafter UN's contributions to norm creation and norm implementation are assessed sequentially. In both cases, political will of member states is essential determinant of success.OVERVIEW OF THE REGIMEThe rules and regulations governing world's oceans are specified in United Nations convention on law of sea (hereafter LOS convention): all coastal states have sovereign rights to resources in water column and seabed within 200 nautical miles from shore. The LOS convention defines continental shelf as submerged prolongation of coastal state's land territory. When such prolongations extend beyond 200 nautical miles, they belong to coastal state.5 On its continental shelf extension, coastal state has sovereign rights to explore and exploit the non-living resources of sea-bed and subsoil.6 The interests at stake are considerable.The LOS convention specifies both enabling criteria for ascertaining whether continental shelf protrudes beyond 200 nautical miles and constraints to amount of seabed beyond 200 nautical miles over which coastal state has rights. …