I’m watching a video about the resources (oil, minerals, fish) being exposed as the Arctic ice retreats and what belongs to who among the Arctic bordering nations. At the moment they agree that each is entitled to everything within 200 mi of its coast and overlapping claims are being negotiated.
The Northwest Passage has been the Holy Grail for some time now, Jefferson hoped to find it (and I suppose, tax it) here. Had we found it, Panama would certainly have had a different history.
Artic warming has revealed and defined NWP to be flowing THRU Canada, which as we all know:), politcally extends its extent across it in a maze of sizeable islands. The US has a minor claim on NWP as long as ice forces traffic to within 200 mi of Alaska.
Canada geographically sits on (owns) a global resource which (no matter how developed) will reduce our global carbon footprint while lowering the cost of globalization.
Can we trust Canada to do right?
Or should we reexamine our ideas about “ownership”.
Just sayin’.
mods - move it where you will but let’s see where it goes
Can you elaborate? What natural resource are you talking about? What do you mean by “reexamining our ideas about “ownership”?” Do you have reasons to believe that Canada having the northwest passage going through it would be worse than any other country having sovereignty over it?
As I understand it, if they’re your “territorial waters”, you don’t have the right to block “innocent passage.” Canada claims that the Northwest Passage is Canadian “internal waters,” which would allow Canada the right to block innocent passage, a claim that the US and other nations do not accept. I’m not really up on the details of maritime law, but to say that Canada can do as it pleases with regard to the Northwest Passage is certainly not a universally accepted principle.
Amplifying Cat Whisperer’s questions: Are we talking here about ownership of the land and its associated resources, or the right to use the northwest passage for shipping?
The first seems a reasonably settled question: Canada has the same rights to the land and its resources that nations everywhere do. These extend out to 200nm, which is considered the Exclusive Economic Zone, and include fishing rights. When such areas are also within 200nm of some other country’s territory, the boundary is typically the locus of points equidistant from the two - or possibly one set by treaty.
You seem to be implying that there’s someone else we can trust more, and further arguing that there’s some way we can justify putting the Northwest Passage under the ownership of said trustworthy entity. Care to elaborate?
Because if you’re saying that the US (or any other nation) ought to take the Passage by force, then my response is that any nation that would take territory by force like that is not one I’d trust to do the right thing with it once they have it.
That link says that the US and other countries consider it to be an “international strait”. I’m sure it’s very convenient for them to be able to just arbitrarily declare another nation’s waters to be international waters, but as far as I can tell 5 seconds of research they have no basis for that. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea would seem to be quite clear that they should count as “Archipelagic waters”. Other nations would still have the right to innocent passage but in other matters the waters would be treated like internal waters.
It doesn’t sound as if your first statement necessarily contradicts the last.
Either other nations should be afforded the right of passage or they should not. Canada’s position is that they should not - or, in any event, that other countries should have to ask permission, or something. Everyone else believes they should.
If the Northwest Passage is an International Strait, than it’s international waters. We have no sovereignty over it whatsoever. Frankly, given my 5 seconds of research I think that our government’s position on the issue is bullshit and completely unhelpful. But I also take umbrage at a group of large, powerful countries led by the US trying to push us around and arbitrarily declare our own waters to be international waters, just because that would be convenient for them.
Archipelagic waters only apply to an archipelagic nation, such as Japan or the Philippines. Canada’s claim is that they can close the straits to innocent passage, which the US disagrees with. Both seem to have a case, and the last time I looked into it, I recall thinking the US had the better case, although I can’t recall the particulars. The requirements for internal waters are pretty stringent, and issues of the sort are quite often the cause of international disputes, both legal and military.
Will Canada map the passage, provide buoys, lighthouses, and coast guard patrols? If they are willing to do that, I would concede territorial rights to them.
If not, they should be international waters.
I do believe that being an “international strait” provides right of innocent passage, but grants absolutely no rights of economic use whatsoever. It certainly doesn’t mean “no sovereignty whatsoever.” The analogous case would be Turkey’s rights over the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Civilian ships in peacetime are free to pass through. Military ships need permission. This is all governed by treaties, not established principles of maritime law.
I can’t think of another case where an important strait is internal to a single nation. Gibraltar and Øresund are comparable, but the opposite shores of each are different countries.
Sounds definitive to this non-lawyer. There looks to be room for argument about territoriality, depending on archipelagicality, but that matter doesn’t affect the right of innocent passage. Canada can regulate it but can’t prevent it.
There’s the key – regulate. To say the least, the arctic is a highly environmentally sensitive area. Spills up there will have effects that are much longer lasting than in more temperate climes. Regulation of how ships transit the passage will hopefully decrease the frequency of spills. Regulation requires the waters to be internal waters, rather than international waters.
Putting the law aside for the moment, think about the equity of the matter. Canada is the country that will suffer from spills in the passage. Canada is the country that best understands the environment in its archipelago. Canada is the country that maintains/monitors the passage. In short, Canada is the country that is in the best position to regulate how ships go about navigating its archipelago, with a view to limiting environmental harm.
