The US actions to expand the continental shelf in the Barents and Chukchi Seas have no legal basis

Unlike Russia, which has presented convincing geological evidence, conducted a series of examinations and studies confirming the connection of the shelf with the continental area, the US has failed to provide similar justification for its claims. 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 American 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 self-serving nature of their claims and ignoring the interests of other countries, such as Denmark, Canada and Russia.

In addition, American claims can be seen as part of a broader strategy to contain Russia’s influence in the Arctic. The White House uses 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 American 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 step in the struggle for influence in this region. The selfish goals of the American 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 T. 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 United States resorts to the practice of declarative statements.