1 课件 arctic battle ppt

8
Comprehension
Para 5-10: 4. How can a claim to the Arctic be recognized?
By providing scientific evidence showing that the Arctic Ocean’s sea shelf is a continuation of the country’s continental platform.
12
Comprehension
Para 11-13: 8. Why does the author mention US senator Richard Lugar’s encouragement on ratification of the Convention?
Background: ratification of the Convention gives a country a ten-year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf (which, if validated, gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area) If ratifying the Convention, US could also lay claim to certain Arctic sector, hence blocking Russia’s claim
Comprehension
Para 1: 1. Why does the author begin with “lobster summit”? Has it anything to do with the coming conflict in the Arctic?
No direct relationships. The author is leading readers to the central topic from something similar in nature ------ missile defense, final status of Kosovo, all are confrontations, only the later more visible and public, the former more hidden.
6
Comprehension
Para 2-4: 2. Why is the Arctic important?
imminent world energy crisis Rich and unexplored energy reserves in the Arctic
7
Comprehension
Para 5-10: 3. Is there an international arrangement over the Arctic currently?
13
Comprehension
9. Why does the author conclude at last that “it promises to be a tough fight”?
Russia’s claim → US intrusion → Russia’s resistence + hard-line policy towards US
Unit 9
The Arctic Conflict
Claims to the Arctic
Claims to the Arctic
Comprehension
Para 1: 1. Why does the author begin with “lobster summit”? Has it anything to do with the coming conflict in the Arctic? Para 2-4: 2. Why is the Arctic important? Para 5-10: 3. Is there an international arrangement over the Arctic currently? 4. How can a claim to the Arctic be recognized? 5. What attempts has Russia made to claim the Arctic? 6. Is there any hope that Russia’s latest claim be recognized by the UN? Why or why not? Para 11-13: 7. Will the UN’s recognition of Russia’s claim come easily? Why or why not? 8. Why does the author mention US senator Richard Lugar’s encouragement on ratification of the Convention? 9. Why does the author conclude at last that “it promises to be a tough fight”? 5
10
Comprehension
Para 5-10: 6. Is there any hope that Russia’s latest claim be recognized by the UN? Why or why not?
Yes. New evidence has been found that an underwater shelf directly links the North Pole and Russian territory.
yes, the 1982 International Convention on the Law of the Sea 12-mile territorial waters 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) No country currently owns the area
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
14
Geological words
• • • • • 海床，海底 冰盖，常年不化的冰 大陆架 大陆台地 海岭，山脊
Under international law, no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it. The five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) adjacent to their coasts.[1] Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country has a ten year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf which, if validated, gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area.[2] Due to this, Norway (ratified the convention in 1996[3]), Russia (ratified in 1997[3]), Canada (ratified in 2003[3]) and Denmark (ratified in 2004[3]) launched projects to provide a basis for seabed claims on extended continental shelves beyond their exclusive economic zones. The United States has signed, but not yet ratified this treaty, although George W. Bush asked the United States Senate to pass a resolution of ratification on May 15, 2007[4] and on October 31, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the ratification vote to the full US Senate.[5] The status of certain portions of the Arctic sea region are in dispute for various reasons. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States all regard parts of the Arctic seas as “national waters” (territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles) or “internal waters”. There also are disputes regarding what passages constitute “international seaways” and rights to passage along them (see Northwest Passage).