Sovereignty over the Northwest Passage

[BrainGlutton]

@RickJay

Canada either is going to defend the NWP, or it isn’t. If we do, which is the plan, it’s ours.

“Defend” it how? The U.S. and Canada are military allies, both NATO members – presumably military action by/against either side would be out of the question.

[Gfactor]

@tomndebb

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.

I don’t have all of the research materials at my fingertips, but:

The United States and the European Union position is that, contrary to Canadian claims, the Northwest Passage is an international strait. The Americans in particular do not accept the argument that ice cover makes a difference for the international legal definition of an international strait. The Americans have always maintained that the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Strait of Corfu case is applicable for the Northwest Passage. In that case, the Court ruled that an international strait is a body of water that joins two international bodies of water, and has been used by international shipping.[ 22 ] The United States argues that the Northwest Passage joins two international bodies of water and has been used for international shipping, albeit a very small number of transits.

http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml

In addition to the United States, the United Kingdom, acting on behalf of the European Community, issued a diplomatic protest against Canadian efforts in 1985 to enclose its Arctic waters as internal waters by using straight baselines.[ 26 ] The Europeans have kept their protests low key, preferring to allow the Americans to take the more active position. But by issuing a demarche against the Canadian claim, they have given notice that they have not acquiesced to Canadian claims of sovereignty.

• Id. *

While the Japanese have never issued a statement of their view of the status of the Northwest Passage, it is clear that they would gain if it became a functioning international strait.

*Id. *

Much of the rest of the world, however, notably the U.S. and the European Union, disagrees, calling the passage an “international strait,” according to a 1946 international court definition.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/12/02/Worldandnation/Warming_may_open_Nort.shtml

Multilateralism and International Ocean-Resources Law: Comment on Chapter 4 (pdf) (also lays out the US position and cites cases)

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (ICJ 1951) (pdf) (cited in previous link)

Corfu Channel (1949) (pdf) (cited in previous link)

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

“Defend” it how? The U.S. and Canada are military allies, both NATO members – presumably military action by/against either side would be out of the question.

And since we’re both members of NAFTA, economic sanctions would also be ruled out. What’s left?

[RickJay]

@BrainGlutton

“Defend” it how? The U.S. and Canada are military allies, both NATO members – presumably military action by/against either side would be out of the question.

Territory is not just claimed by killing someone. As has been explained again, and again, and again, in several threads, the Canadian plan is to create the capability to do so; to mantain a presence in the Arctic. That’s what we have to do to truly claim it’s ours. I’m not sure what else has to be said that has not been said a dozen times already, by half a dozen (at least) posters. To make that area Canadian, you need to have Canadians in it.

As to your point about NAFTA, I don’t think you quite understand NAFTA; it’s not some mass erasure of the economic border. The two countries can most certainly engage in trade sanctions, as is in fact happening right now over softwood lumber. The U.S. actions are a trade sanction.

[BrainGlutton]

@RickJay

. . . the Canadian plan is to create the capability to do so; to mantain a presence in the Arctic. That’s what we have to do to truly claim it’s ours. . . . To make that area Canadian, you need to have Canadians in it.

You mean, beef up the Canadian Navy and start patrolling the waters?

Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to make a difference. The U.S. Navy subs won’t even notice.

[Orbifold]

@BrainGlutton

And since we’re both members of NAFTA, economic sanctions would also be ruled out.

Tell that to Canadian softwood lumber producers. I’m sure they’d find the idea that NAFTA prevents economic sanctions to be amusing.

[RickJay]

@BrainGlutton

You mean, beef up the Canadian Navy and start patrolling the waters?

Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to make a difference. The U.S. Navy subs won’t even notice.

Of course I mean beef up the Canadian navy. You’ve been involved in threads where the specifics have been discussed.

Of course the U.S. Navy subs will notice, which is the point. (They do have passive sonars on subs these days.) I realize that Canada cannot win a war against the United States. Duh. No country has the capability to win every conceivable military engagement. The point that’s been made, again and again and again, is that Canada needs a presence in the Arctic to establish its sovereignty. I stress, again; nobody is looking to start a war, not with the USA, not with Russia, not with anyone. Jesus. This isn’t about putting up some unstoppable barrier. The U.S. could roll into Canada tomorrow, if it went insane; why worry about the Arctic if they’re going to clobber every major urban centre in two days?

What Canada is trying to do is to establish its sovereignty over the Arctic. You cannot claim sovereignty without a physical presence. Since there are essentially no civilians above a certain latitude, it falls to the government to demonstrate its capability to, at If there are no Canadians in the Arctic, then it is no more a part of Canada than the Moon is.

To use an example, imagine if Hawaii was uninhabited. Then, imagine the U.S. had no Navy, no aircraft capable of reaching Hawaii, and no ICBMs. What would make Hawaii part of the United States? Nothing at all. The U.S. could bluster and talk all it wanted but in no real way would Hawaii be American.

Furthermore, there’s more to the issue than “Stop the American submarines.” There are other countries in the world. There are issues of economic potential. I’d explain all this again but I’m sure you can find the other thread.

[Gladstone]

@RickJay

What Canada is trying to do is to establish its sovereignty over the Arctic. You cannot claim sovereignty without a physical presence.

To use an example, imagine if Hawaii was uninhabited. Then, imagine the U.S. had no Navy, no aircraft capable of reaching Hawaii, and no ICBMs. What would make Hawaii part of the United States? Nothing at all. The U.S. could bluster and talk all it wanted but in no real way would Hawaii be American.

You don’t necessarily need a permanent physical presence to establish sovereignty. A country merely needs to claim it, annex it or incorporate it in some official way and have that claim recognized by other nations, preferably through multiple treaties if the territory is in dispute in anyway. For instance, the South Sandwich Islands in the South Atlantic are claimed and “administered” by Britain (disputed by Argentina) but they are uninhabited. In addition, prior to the main Antarctic Treaty in 1961, several countries claimed large swaths of Antarctica, despite having no physical presence over most, if not all, of it.

[Greenback]

It’s not a permanent physical presence that we’re talking about. It’s about having regular patrols in the disputed area. If I understand Harper correctly, it will be a permant patrol in that we intend to always have a rowboat or two up north.

And while no one will assert that Canada would fire on an american boat (submarine or other), the issue is will the US willfully violate our sovereign borders? Once we start patrolling the area, that is what the NWP becomes.

[BrainGlutton]

As a minor hijack, I must say I find this Canadian “when life hands you lemons” attitude to global warming rather . . . well, inspiring and appalling in equal measure.

[Greenback]

@BrainGlutton

As a minor hijack, I must say I find this Canadian “when life hands you lemons” attitude to global warming rather . . . well, inspiring and appalling in equal measure.

You really need to spend a January in Winterpeg to understand where that sentiment comes from