# Sovereignty over the Northwest Passage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641 "2006-03-01T18:29:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/1 "2006-03-01T18:29:55Z")
In several recent threads on Canadian politics, it has been mentioned that Canada intends to re-assert its sovereignty and control over the Northwest Passage sea route from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Up to now the NWP has not been a very important shipping route because it is usually impassable to anything but an icebreaker. In fact, no one succeeded in making the passage until Roald Amundson in 1906. But some Canadians think the NWP will take on increasing importance due to global warming. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest\_passage:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_passage:) > [@](#): > > In 1969 the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker CCGS John A. Macdonald. The Manhattan was a specially reinforced supertanker that was sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil. While the Manhattan succeeded, the route was deemed not cost effective and a pipeline was built instead. > > In 1985 the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea was sent through. The U.S. Government made a point of not asking permission from the Canadians for the passage. They claimed that it was simply a cost effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no reason for them to be asking permission to travel through international waters. The Canadian government maintained that the waters were internal to Canada, and issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the USA, European Union (as an organisation - not the member states whose foreign affairs are soverign matters outside of the EU structure), and Japan, among other countries, refused to recognize the Canadian claim. [1] > > In the summer of 2000, several ships took advantage of thinning summer ice cover on the Arctic Ocean to make the crossing. It is thought that global warming is likely to open the passage for increasing periods of time, making it attractive as a major shipping route. Routes from Europe to the Far East save 4000 km through the passage, as compared to the current routes through the Panama Canal. > > In late 2005, it was revealed that U.S. nuclear submarines had been traveling the passage without Canadian approval, sparking Canadian outrage. In his first news conference after the federal election then underway, then Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper rebuked an earlier statement made by the American ambassador that Arctic waters were international, stating the Canadian government’s intention to enforce its sovereignty there. Issues for debate: 1. As a matter of international law, is the NWP Canadian waters or international waters? 2. Will global warming actually make the NWP more economically important? 3. Assuming the NWP is under Canadian sovereignty, is impermissive use of it by the U.S. Navy a significant enough violation to make an issue of in U.S.-Canadian relations? 4. How will it likely play out? Will the U.S. accede to Canadian demands, or continue to insist the waters are international? If the U.S. refuses to back down, what will the Canadians do about it? ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/2 "2006-03-01T18:59:47Z")
Here’s a more basic question: even if it’s deemed that the Northwest Passage is in Canadian territorial waters, what difference does it make? Is Canada proposing to make other nations pay a toll for using it? And how would they do that? ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/3 "2006-03-01T19:02:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Issues for debate: > > 1. As a matter of international law, is the NWP Canadian waters or international waters? As A Canadian I have to concede that there are very few countries out there who would consider the potential opened NWP anything but International waters. I’d like to think that our Boarders do extend into our territorial waters and as can be seen by any map Our Northern Islands and coast are there. Perhaps someone could explain what international law defines as territorial water limits. > [@](#): > > 1. Will global warming actually make the NWP more economically important? The current trend of thinning ice seems to point towards the NWP becoming accessable in a seasonal way some time in the next fifty years Possibly sooner depending on who you ask. If that is the case it will become cheaper than the current shipping routes. > [@](#): > > 1. Assuming the NWP is under Canadian sovereignty, is impermissive use of it by the U.S. Navy a significant enough violation to make an issue of in U.S.-Canadian relations? It could become an issue of contention but I can never see the two countries ever doing more than protesting and appealinmg to international courts. > [@](#): > > 1. How will it likely play out? Will the U.S. accede to Canadian demands, or continue to insist the waters are international? If the U.S. refuses to back down, what will the Canadians do about it? Will the US acede? Honestly I think it is unlikely. The United States tends to stick to its own beliefs no matter what, and if a junior partner is involved tough for that country. It’s a national attitude that is very unlikely to change. If it benifits the States, however, there could, one day, be a mutual understanding reached through treaty. But for now it is easier for the States to do what they want knowing there will be very little in the way of consequences so they will do what they want. Canada can do very little except try to challenge any individual attempts to cross either by ship or pinging any subs with the proposed underwater listening posts. After that all is left is the use of diplomacy and sanctions. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/4 "2006-03-01T19:18:59Z")
> [@kingpengvin](#): > > As A Canadian I have to concede that there are very few countries out there who would consider the potential opened NWP anything but International waters. I’d like to think that our Boarders do extend into our territorial waters and as can be seen by any map Our Northern Islands and coast are there. Perhaps someone could explain what international law defines as territorial water limits. According to this article – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial\_waters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters) – a state has complete sovereignty over all its “internal waters,” but “innocent passage” is allowed, without permission, through its “territorial waters.” The 1994 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a state’s “territorial waters” extend 12 nautical miles from its shore. OTOH, the same article states, “All archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered internal waters.” One could make a case – and I suppose that would be the Canadian position – that Canada is an “archipelagic state” with respect to the chains of islands off its northern coast, therefore all the waters between those islands, and between the islands and the mainland, are “internal waters” which no other country’s ships may cross without Canadian permission. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/5 "2006-03-01T19:24:36Z")
This map, BTW, shows an “international boundary” by which Canada apparently claims sovereignty over waters extending all the way to the North Pole: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map\_Canada\_political.jpg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_Canada_political.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/6 "2006-03-01T19:34:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The 1994 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a state’s “territorial waters” extend 12 nautical miles from its shore. Law of the Sea Treaty: [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention\_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/7 "2006-03-01T19:35:15Z")
Apropos of nothing, here are the lyrics to Canada’s “unofficial national anthem,” “Northwest Passage,” by the late folksinger Stan Rogers (I’ve got most of his albums, on vinyl yet): [http://www.geocities.com/~elainedues/lyrics.html#northwest](http://www.geocities.com/~elainedues/lyrics.html#northwest) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/8 "2006-03-01T19:37:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > One could make a case – and I suppose that would be the Canadian position – that Canada is an “archipelagic state” with respect to the chains of islands off its northern coast, therefore all the waters between those islands, and between the islands and the mainland, are “internal waters” which no other country’s ships may cross without Canadian permission. No. > [@](#): > > “archipelagic State” means a State constituted \*wholly \*by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands; (Emphasis added). [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention\_agreements/texts/unclos/part4.htm](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part4.htm) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/9 "2006-03-01T19:40:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Issues for debate: > > 1. As a matter of international law, is the NWP Canadian waters or international waters? If the “Northwest Passage” is identified as the route through Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, and Viscount Melville Sound, (regardless of entrances or exits to those bodies), I cannot see how anyone would claim that those are international waters and I would be curious to see what arguments the EU, US, and Japan put forth to defend that assertion. Even insisting on a 12 mile limit and holding that the narrows between Griffith Island and Somerset Island are 31 miles wide, leaving a seven mile wide “international” channel, the distance from Lowther Island to Russell Island is only 23 miles (and there are some large rocks that are even closer together. At a guess, it is the “12 mile limit” (ignoring more recent claims for a 200 mile limit) that is being used as the guide. (The even older 3 mile limit might be invoked to claim that Canada does not own the straits, but I cannot believe that any diplomat or lawyer could make that claim with a straight face.) And since I am not aware that anyone actually intends to exit Viscount Melville Sound via McClure Sound, the Prince of Wales Strait is clearly Canadian. The Straits of Hormuz are around 30 miles across at the two narrowest points, so they don’t help, here. On the other hand, what is the recognized status of _Bab al Mandab_ (the closing of which renders the Suez Canal worthless), which is only 12 miles across. (Since it is shared by two nations, of course, that might make it “international.”) Does anyone claim that the Dardanelles are international? How about _Tsugaru-kaikyo_ separating the Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu? > [@](#): > > 1. Will global warming actually make the NWP more economically important? If the ice thins to the point of permitting regular transit (even if only in reinforced hull ship) it will definitely be economically important. > [@](#): > > 1. Assuming the NWP is under Canadian sovereignty, is impermissive use of it by the U.S. Navy a significant enough violation to make an issue of in U.S.-Canadian relations? If you like wrasslin’ bears. > [@](#): > > 1. How will it likely play out? Will the U.S. accede to Canadian demands, or continue to insist the waters are international? If the U.S. refuses to back down, what will the Canadians do about it? The Polar Sea transit was undertaken at a time of an adminstration used to high-handed actions. Do you think the current administration is _more_ likely to seek to actually _negotiate_ the issue? How it plays out depends too much on the players. If Canada waits/hopes for a regime change in 2008 it may play out differently than if Canada tries to compel the current administration to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/10 "2006-03-01T19:44:14Z")
All of that is where the “right of innocent passage” enters into it, innit? Even with that, Canada would still have a Coast-Guard-type obligation to patrol its navigable waters, I would think. Innocent passage isn’t a right to pollute or operate unsafely or interfere with fishing, for instances, and not all passage is necessarily innocent, either. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/11 "2006-03-01T20:14:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Innocent passage isn’t a right to pollute or operate unsafely or interfere with fishing . . . But, have American ships been accused of doing any of that? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/12 "2006-03-01T20:19:39Z")
In places where ships \*have \* gone routinely, yes, that can and has happened, and why limit it to American ships? The shipping one would expect to see through the NWP would be mostly freighters traveling between Europe and Asia, under whatever flag is convenient. Those shady, underfinanced, rustbucket operations are the ones that would be expected to pose the greatest ecological and safety threats there, just like they are everywhere else. There wouldn’t be much reason to see American tankers there, with the Alaska Pipeline now in place. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/13 "2006-03-01T20:21:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, have American ships been accused of doing any of that? I forgot to say, why don’t you ask Captain Joseph Hazlewood about that? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/14 "2006-03-01T20:24:33Z")
Here is what Canada says, generally, about its Oceans jurisdiction: [http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/OceansAct/OAPart1\_e.htm](http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/OceansAct/OAPart1_e.htm) Essentially, the LOS Convention sets up a tiered sovereignty system based on a baseline, that as Canada says, is the “low water mark along the coast.” 1. Internal waters the near side of the baseline. There is no right of innocent passage. 2. Territorial sea (12 miles). Right of innocent passage, but ships are subject to regulation, to some extent. 3. Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles). Coastal state has limited jurisdiction: > [@](#): > > 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has: > > (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; > > (b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to: > > (i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; > > (ii) marine scientific research; > > (iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment; > > (c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention. > > 1. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention. > > 2. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI. [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention\_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm) A discussion that touches on the issue: > [@](#): > > Although Canada’s claim to sovereignty over the islands of the archipelago is beyond all doubt, the status of the Northwest Passage, which has both symbolic and defensive importance for Canada, is questioned by the United States. In view of recent strategic developments, which are described below, Canada should be able to control the movement of all classes of vessels through the waters between the arctic islands. The spontaneous popular reactions to the voyages of the Manhattan and the Polar Sea show that Canadians feel strongly about their claims to these waters. > > Between the two voyages by the U.S. ships, three other ships, the Polish Gdynia and the Swedish Lindblatt Explorer and World Explorer made full or partial transits of the Northwest Passage. In all cases permission was requested and granted. The Polar Sea did not ask permission, although Canadian authorities were informed of the U.S. coast guard’s intentions, and the government of Canada ultimately agreed to the passage. The other superpower, the Soviet Union, anxious to establish international recognition of its claim that the Northeast Passage along its northern coast is internal waters, gave cautious support to Canada’s claim. [http://www.carc.org/pubs/v14no4/6.htm](http://www.carc.org/pubs/v14no4/6.htm) Actually, here is a better discussion of Canada’s position. [http://www.carc.org/pubs/v22no4/loss.htm](http://www.carc.org/pubs/v22no4/loss.htm) and more: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/arctic.html](http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/arctic.html) [http://www.arcticnet-ulaval.ca/index.php?fa=News.showNews&menu=4&home=5&sub=1&id=107](http://www.arcticnet-ulaval.ca/index.php?fa=News.showNews&menu=4&home=5&sub=1&id=107) [http://www.arcticnet-ulaval.ca/index.php?fa=News.showNews&home=4&menu=55&sub=1&id=77](http://www.arcticnet-ulaval.ca/index.php?fa=News.showNews&home=4&menu=55&sub=1&id=77) Hope this helps, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/15 "2006-03-01T20:39:56Z")
The gist of Canada’s claim: > [@](#): > > Canada is on record as saying it can satisfy both of those requirements. Over the years, Canada has cited several reasons or precedents spelling out why its Arctic waters should be considered entirely “internal.” > > An International Court of Justice ruling in 1951 established that the 12-mile limit could be extended in some instances. Countries could draw a straight baseline across areas of coastal areas dotted with many islands and basically declare that all the water between that line and the mainland is internal, even if it lies outside the 12-mile limit. The ruling was about a case involving Norway. But some observers say Canada’s geographic case is similar. > > For another thing, Canada points out that the waters separating most of the islands in Canada’s Arctic are frozen over most of the year. Inuit hunt and spend large amounts of time working and even living on the ice – in effect turning it into an extension of the land. [http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/arctic.html](http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/arctic.html) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/16 "2006-03-01T21:11:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > On the other hand, what is the recognized status of _Bab al Mandab_ (the closing of which renders the Suez Canal worthless), which is only 12 miles across. (Since it is shared by two nations, of course, that might make it “international.”) There’s a special rule in cases like that: > [@](#): > > Article15 > > Delimitation of the territorial sea between States > > with opposite or adjacent coasts > > Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith. [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention\_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm) > [@](#): > > Does anyone claim that the Dardanelles are international? Er. Apparently so. > [@](#): > > Following the war, the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres demilitarized the strait and made it an international territory under the control of the League of Nations. This was amended under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which restored the straits to Turkey but allowed all foreign warships to traverse the straits freely. Turkey rejected the terms of this treaty and subsequently remilitarized the area. The reversion to this old regime was formalised under the Montreux Convention of July 1936. \*\*The convention, which is still in force today, treats the straits as an international shipping lane but Turkey retains the right to restrict the naval traffic of non-Black Sea nations (like Greece). \*\*During World War II, when Turkey was neutral for almost the entire length of the conflict, the Dardanelles were closed to the ships of the belligerent nations. (Emphasis added.) > [@](#): > > How about _Tsugaru-kaikyo_ separating the Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu? I believe Japan qualifies as an arhipelagic state under the definition I quoted earlier. As such, Article 47 governs: > [@](#): > > Article47 > > Archipelagic baselines > > 1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. > > 2. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. > > 3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. > > 4. Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea from the nearest island. > > 5. The system of such baselines shall not be applied by an archipelagic State in such a manner as to cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another State. > > 6. If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an immediately adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between those States shall continue and be respected. > > 7. For the purpose of computing the ratio of water to land under paragraph l, land areas may include waters lying within the fringing reefs of islands and atolls, including that part of a steep-sided oceanic plateau which is enclosed or nearly enclosed by a chain of limestone islands and drying reefs lying on the perimeter of the plateau. > > 8. The baselines drawn in accordance with this article shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position. Alternatively, lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be substituted. > > 9. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention\_agreements/texts/unclos/part4.htm](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part4.htm) _And see_, [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/JPN\_1996\_Law.pdf](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/JPN_1996_Law.pdf) (pdf); [http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/JODC/ryokai/tokutei/tokutei2.html](http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/JODC/ryokai/tokutei/tokutei2.html) (charts); [http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/JODC/ryokai/ryokai2.html](http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/JODC/ryokai/ryokai2.html) (more charts); [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/JPN.htm](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/JPN.htm) (collection of UN submissions) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/17 "2006-03-01T21:49:20Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Er. Apparently so. > > > [@](#): > > > > Following the war, the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres demilitarized the strait and made it an international territory under the control of the League of Nations. This was amended under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which restored the straits to Turkey but allowed all foreign warships to traverse the straits freely. Turkey rejected the terms of this treaty and subsequently remilitarized the area. The reversion to this old regime was formalised under the Montreux Convention of July 1936. The convention, which is still in force today, treats the straits as an international shipping lane but Turkey retains the right to restrict the naval traffic of non-Black Sea nations (like Greece). During World War II, when Turkey was neutral for almost the entire length of the conflict, the Dardanelles were closed to the ships of the belligerent nations. > **[Dardanelles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles)** > > The Dardanelles (/dɑːrdəˈnɛlz/; Turkish: Çanakkale Boğazı, lit. 'Strait of Çanakkale', Greek: Δαρδανέλλια, romanized: Dardanéllia), also known as Strait of Gallipoli from the Gallipoli peninsula or from Classical Antiquity as the Hellespont (/ˈhɛlɪspɒnt/; Classical Greek: Ἑλλήσποντος, romanized: Hellēspontos, lit. 'Sea of Helle'), is a narrow, natural strait and internationally significant waterway in northwestern Turkey that forms part of the continental boundary between Europe and Asia and se... Forgot the cite. But having read the actual [convention](http://www.turkishpilots.org.tr/ingilizcedernek/DOCUMENTS/montro.html) , I note that it doesn’t actually say international shipping lane. It just spells out rights of transit and navigation. In light of this information, I will revise my comment from “yes” to “it’s the subject of a special treaty.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/18 "2006-03-01T23:06:10Z")
Hmm . . . Except for **kingpengvin,** no CanaDopers have posted to this thread yet. Perhaps they don’t feel the issue is even debatable? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/19 "2006-03-01T23:11:45Z")
I would still be interested to see whether the EU and Japan have made actual arguments for the international status of the route or whether they have simply declared that they don’t choose to recognize that status since they may want to send ships through in the future. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641/20 "2006-03-01T23:24:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hmm . . . Except for **kingpengvin,** no CanaDopers have posted to this thread yet. Perhaps they don’t feel the issue is even debatable? Pretty much all the legal points have been made. There isn’t much else to say. Canada either is going to defend the NWP, or it isn’t. If we do, which is the plan, it’s ours. If we don’t, we have no right to say it is. I WILL say that the territorial map that purports to extent Canada’s territory to the North Pole is preposterous. We rightfully own the waters in between the Arctic islands, but that chunk of water extends way, way outside of any rational definition of “Between the Arctic islands.” There’s no justification for just claiming a big swath of open sea because it looks pretty on a map. So to answer your questions: 1. Based on what I’ve read so far, it belongs to Canada. 2. Probably, though it’s just guesswork and a totally different field of study. 3. Yes, it is. 4. As always, some kind of deal will be struck if the issue comes up in the foreseeable future. Who knows what could happen 60 years from now, but under current conditions, there’ll be some concessions or something one way or another. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereignty-over-the-northwest-passage/346641.md?page=2)