# Canada Owns The Northwest Passage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167 "2010-01-31T22:18:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/1 "2010-01-31T22:18:28Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/2 "2010-01-31T22:22:13Z")
As a basically political question, this seems to me to be more suited for GD than GQ. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/3 "2010-01-31T22:25:11Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/4 "2010-01-31T22:27:20Z")
What are you going to do? Invade? Those are _our_ territorial waters, thank you very much, and we’ll do with them as we please. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/5 "2010-01-31T22:33:30Z")
What? Trust the _Canadians_? With their history of invasion, interference, exploitation, imperialism, outright…what? They didn’t? Then who…? Oh. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/6 "2010-01-31T22:40:14Z")
I think the worst that will happen is they’ll force the ships to form an orderly queue. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/7 "2010-01-31T22:44:05Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > What are you going to do? Invade? Those are _our_ territorial waters, thank you very much, and we’ll do with them as we please. 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. Wikipedia on the issue: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest\_Passage#International\_waters\_dispute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#International_waters_dispute) ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/8 "2010-01-31T22:49:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/9 "2010-01-31T22:56:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Can we trust Canada to do right? 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. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/10 "2010-01-31T23:04:51Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > Can you elaborate? What natural resource are you talking about? As the ice recedes, everything of value is more easily exploited. I’m open to any counterexample but ice-fishing. Polar bears agree. > [@](#): > > 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? To the contrary, given their relatively un-militaristic global attitude and their attention to social needs at home, I’m quite content. > [@](#): > > What do you mean by “reexamining our ideas about “ownership”?” Maybe Canada can set a good example for all of we accidents of birth and rights. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/11 "2010-01-31T23:29:03Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > 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. > > Wikipedia on the issue: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest\_Passage#International\_waters\_dispute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#International_waters_dispute) 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. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/12 "2010-01-31T23:38:08Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/13 "2010-01-31T23:43:10Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I think the worst that will happen is they’ll force the ships to form an orderly queue. With a 26 waiting period 😃 As I’ve said before, the US can declare it international waters if Russia can sail it’s warships back and forth through the Florida Keys. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/14 "2010-01-31T23:47:24Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > It doesn’t sound as if your first statement necessarily contradicts the last. 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. [Cite that “international strait” = “international waters”](http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0561-e.htm) > [@](#): > > Canada’s assertion that the Northwest Passage represents internal (territorial) waters has been challenged by other countries, including the United States, **which argue that these waters constitute an international strait (international waters)**. Interest in the region’s economic potential has resulted in discussions of increased resource exploration and disputed sub-surface resources, as well as concerns over environmental degradation, control and regulation of shipping activities, and protection of northern inhabitants. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/15 "2010-02-01T00:10:09Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/16 "2010-02-01T00:14:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/17 "2010-02-01T00:15:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/18 "2010-02-01T00:31:15Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > 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. [We’re on it.](http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/05/04/arctic-marine-charts.html) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/19 "2010-02-01T00:52:33Z")
[The UN Law of the Sea Treaty](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm) > [@](#): > > Article 2. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea. Is Canada an archipelagic State? > [@](#): > > Article 18. Meaning of passage > > 1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of: > (a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or > (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility. > 2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress. > > Article 19. Meaning of innocent passage > > 1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. > 2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: > (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; > (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; > (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State; > (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State; > (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft; > (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device; > (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State; > (h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention; > (i) any fishing activities; > (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities; > (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State; > (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage. > [@](#): > > Article 21. Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage > > 1. The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following: > (a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic; > (b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations; > (c) the protection of cables and pipelines; > (d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea; > (e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State; > (f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof; > (g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys; > (h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State. > > 2. Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards. > > 3. The coastal State shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations. > > 4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at sea. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167/20 "2010-02-01T02:13:20Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-owns-the-northwest-passage/527167.md?page=2)