« Norway and Iceland sign border treaty | Main | Russia to open scientific station on Svalbard »

01/26/2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This seems to be a promising model for other arctic actors. One-on-one disputes, like the Canadian-American Beaufort Sea Dispute, may be settled by a diplomatic partitioning of the arctic and an exchange of territory and sea.

I think Dr. Byers even suggested a while back that Canada acquiescence to the US view of a line of equidistance in the Beaufort Sea in exchange for American agreement to recognize Canadian control of the Dixon Entrance. Could there be, in light of this alleged Russo-Norwegian deal, a Canadian and American deal regarding the arctic in the works?

^ That is what I was thinking of when reading this, as well.
Hopefully this Russian-Norwegian deal was finalized, setting a precedent and example for other geographical disputes in the arctic.

I am curious to see how this works out. I an unsure of either countries current standing on arctic sovereignty, but i would not be extremely optimistic about this type of agreement between the US and Canada. Canada seems to be stuck in a sticky political position, if any compromise is made Canada runs the risk of being viewed as weak or unable to protect their claims...but we can always hope!

My preference would be for a transit agreement with the US.

The Americans, in return for recognizing Canada's exclusive jurisdiction over the NWP (internal waters - the whole nine-yards, would be granted a military and civilian transit right over the passage, provided that all due coordination is taken with respect to the military transits. The Navy will then get its freedom of the seas, the department of state and homeland security will get a legal regime over the arctic (A Canadian legal regime) and Canadian's will get exclusive jurisdiction over a frontier the size of continental Europe. Everyone wins.

The only stopping block is that precedent that the Americans are concerned about. I am sure that, however, our and their clever lawyers could figure out some legal language to avoid an international precedent. Either that or the Americans will simply tell the Indonesians, the Iranians and so on at the tip of a sword that the precedent doesn't apply, as they did against Libya in the 80s.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Reports and Policy Papers

Academic Articles (accessible through UBC library)