Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting work which is certainly worthy of publication subject to some minor changes highlighted using the pdf comment facility on the attached file relating to apparent quotations, need to provide some sources etc.  It raises significant issues and develops a very interesting and timely analysis.  The principal changes I would like to see are

(1) some additional indication in the introduction of the approach to be taken;

(2) a fuller conclusion, highlighting the  implications of the analysis of the legal framework and the interpretation of historic waters for Russia in combination with what is said about the international practice of the other Arctic states. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors agreed with the comments made by the reviewer and reacted to them respectfully

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This piece can be a very good contribution.  But, you wrote a position or advocacy paper on behalf of Russia.  What you submitted, unfortunately, can not be considered a scientific contribution.

The proof of your advocacy is demonstrated by among other statements, your conclusion, in which you declare the following: "Russia has tenable prospects of substantial adjustments of its previously established system of baselines in the Arctic Ocean in view of the international practice of application of the law and a number of other factors referred to in this article, as well as of declaring certain additional water areas its 'historic waters.'"

In contrast your abstract states the following:  "Abstract: The article discusses the notion of “baselines” and the legal framework for drawing the same, as well as the practice of drawing baselines, primarily by the coastal Arctic states. As a result of analysis, we make a suggestion that the existing system of baselines in the Arctic Ocean seas may evolve on the basis of international legal rules, with due account taken of the practice of applying them, and through the use of such a legal concept as 'historic waters.'”

Moreover, you spend very little time discussing historic waters.

If you rewrite this piece taking out the advocacy for Russia and truly discussing baseline drawings and focusing on the baselines and what your title states: The Prospects of Evolution of the Baseline Systems in the Arctic, it would worthy of publication on this journal.

Please also see the comments on the attached copy of your manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors agrees with the comments made by the reviewer and responsed to them respectfully

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please check the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf