Whenever appropriate, a summary has been made at the end of chapters, so that a general conclusion might not be absolutely necessary. However, for greater clarity and convenience, a few concluding remarks on the four parts of the book seem advisable. Even at the risk of redundancy, a conclusion is formulated on the main points developed in each of the four parts. The key words of the various chapter and section headings are retained so that the corresponding developments in the text may be easily located.

Part 1. The sector theory

The sector theory has no legal validity as a source of title or State jurisdiction in the Arctic. This applies to land and, a fortiori, to maritime areas. The conclusion follows from a study of three possible legal bases for the theory: the boundary treaties of 1825 and 1867, the doctrine of contiguity and custom.

Boundary treaties of 1825 and 1867 The meridians described in the 1825 Treaty between Great Britain and Russia, as well as the 1867 Treaty between the United States and Russia, were used only as a convenient geographical device to delimit territorial possessions. Although the meridians were described as extending as far as the Frozen Ocean, the Parties made it abundantly clear in both instances that the subject matter of the agreements was land only, and not land and sea.

Contiguity Subject to minor exceptions relating to certain islands in a territorial sea or forming an integral part of an Archipelago, the doctrine of contiguity does not constitute an adequate legal basis for the acquisition of sovereignty over land or maritime areas. Consequently, contiguity cannot serve as a valid basis for the sector theory.