Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The problem of canada arctic sovereignty
The problem of canada arctic sovereignty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A complex collection of more than 1800 separate islands forms the Canadian Archipelago and Canada’s Arctic territory. 1 Within recent history the arctic has gained popular attention from governments both domestically and internationally. The rise in global climate temperatures accounts for longer, ice free Arctic summers, higher levels of resource exploration and development, and less challenges to access in the Arctic. Canadian sovereignty over Arctic lands and islands is undisputed with the single exception of Hans Island, a 1.3 square kilometer island claimed by Denmark.2 Currently what is disputed is the Canadian assertion of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage waterway. The passage which would facilitate international shipping through the sovereign Canadian archipelago island system, links the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean. Its widest and deepest course would take the Northwest passage from “Lancaster Sound through Barrow Straight into Viscount Melville Sound an onwards through M’Clure Straight and into the Beaufort Sea.”3 Historically Arctic ice made this route impossible to cross, but rising temperatures are changing that. The government of Canada believes that the Northwest Passage is situated within internal Canadian waterers, thereby falling under Canadian sovereign jurisdiction, subject to Canadian domestic laws. With the possibility of the passage becoming a international shipping rout, many countries including the United States do not agree with this claim. They suggest the Northwest passage should be an international straight subject to the International Law and the doctrine of transit passage.4
When assessing the validity that Canada’s has a claim to Northwest Passage sovereignty three questions need t...
... middle of paper ...
...pers on the new Welfare ." The Future of the Arctic: A Key to Global Sustainability. no. 5 (2012): 1-5 .
Central Intelligence agency , "Canada ." Last modified November 12, 2013. Accessed November 27, 2013. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html.
Government of Canada , "5. Planned Icebreaker Deployment." Last modified June 24, 2013. Accessed November 26, 2013. http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Icebreaking/Icebreaker-Requirements/Planned-Icebreaker-Deployment.
The Government of Canada , "Canada's Arctic Foreign Policy." Last modified June 03, 2013. Accessed November 27, 2013. http://www.international.gc.ca/arctic-
United Nations , "United Nations and Convention on the Law of the Sea:Division for Ocean Affairs and the LAw of the Sea." Accessed November 27, 2013. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm.
Under the UN 1982 treaty, a state’s territorial sea extends twelve nautical miles from the national coastline (Slomanson 305). Within this area, Ecuador exercises its sovereignty over these waters as if it were a landmass (Slomanson 305). All aspects of the sea are under its control, including the seabed and airspace. Furthermore, Ecuador is allowed to impose laws that regulate the territory and consume resources that lie inside this defined area. Within this territorial sea, Ecuador “must exercise its sovereign power in this adjacent strip of water” (Slomanson 305). Additionally, Ecuador is expected to chart this water and to provide warning of navigational hazards (Slomanson 305). However, Ecuador did not act upon this and was “lax in enforcing it”. In 1951, the International Court of Justice issued this statement in response to a ruling:
The Meech Lake accord was a set of constitutional amendments that were designed to persuade Quebec Province to accept the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (Brooks 152). This accord derives its name from the Meech Lake, where these negotiations were held by Mulroney Brian, the Canadian Prime Minister, and the ten premiers of the ten Canadian Provinces (Brooks 211). By the time the Canadian constitution was being implemented, Quebec was the only province that had not consented to it. Somehow, the partition of the constitution in 1982 was carried out without Quebec’s agreement, but it was still bound by the same law. Attempts were made to persuade this province to sign the constitution, which it agreed to do but only after its five demands are fulfilled by the Canadian government. Unfortunately, these demands were not met and this accord failed in 1990, when two provincial premiers failed to approve it. This paper answers the question whether Quebec asked for too much during the Meech Lake Accord negotiations.
The unit readings argue that anthropologists insist that global flows also partake in affecting local practices. The beliefs and customs of the Inuit are accounted for their interaction with the environment, but these factors also interrelate with neighbouring societies, global capitalism, and international NGOs, as Martha of the North describes. The Inuit were used by the Canadian government in a form of racism and cruelty. To affirm sovereignty in the vast arctic land, Canada had to have permanent residences residing within these territories. They had created a façade that they were providing the Inuit with the opportunity of a better life when in reality, they did not care about them at all. The government had less than honest intentions. What the people who represented the nation did to the relocation of the Inuit is unacceptable and its effect can be explained through holism but also goes beyond the concept on an international scale. Global practices influenced the local practices of the Inuit in the High Arctic. The government representatives of Canada at that time did not value the lives of these people and only cared about their own
2004 [9] The Loyal Edmonton Regiment Museum. 27 December2001 [10]Reid. Brian. Canada at war and peace volume 1. Esprit Dr corps Books [11] Canadians and Conflicts.
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
A century ago, Canada was under control by the British Empire. The battles we fought the treaties we signed and the disputes we solved all helped us gain independence from our mother country “Britain”. Canadians fought a long battle protecting others, and from these battles we gained our peaceful reputation and our independence from Britain. Canada became a nation on July, 1st 1867. Although we were an independent country, our affairs and treaties were all still signed by Britain. In the next years Canada would establish its own government, and lead its own affairs. Many important events led to Canada’s independence, one of the earliest signals that Canada wanted to establish autonomy was the Chanak affair of 1921. In addition the battle of Normandy, which occurred on June 6 1944, contributed to the autonomy of Canada. The Suez Canal Crisis, which took place in the year 1956, earned Canada a place in the media spotlight, displaying Canada as a peaceful country that deserves the right to be independent. One of the final steps that aided with Canada’s independence from Britain was the Canada Act of 1982. Independence from Britain steadily increased throughout the 20th century because of political decisions made in Canada.
Introduction “We are all treaty people” Campaign. The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400).
Further with "pieces of paper", the negotiation of the Halibut Treaty between Canada and the United States of America was also instrumental in establishing Canada's
Britain, like Spain, had permanent colonies, settlements, and claims in the new world. The one prized colony to their colonial chest was Canada, supplying fur, trade, and money to the British people. In regards to Britain’s currently existing colony, the Monroe doctrine professed no disavowal of the right of the British to manage their respective colony (Yale Law School). Yet, the British territorial claims in Oregon, supported by the notion of preexisting settlements by their fur trading company, was naturally at direct odds with the United States’ belief in Manifest Destiny. This issue already provided a reason for Monroe and Adam’s to be uneasy over British presence in the new world. It was in the national interest of the United States to put an end to the prospect of colonization of the Oregon
The post-war time was a period where major changes were occurring. After being involved in two international conflicts, Canada was ready to reestablish their economy. During this time, Canada had started working on ways to become stronger and reputable. It is evident that Canada had matured through the post-war era. Canada’s economic progress left a positive impact on the growth of the country as consumerism became popular, and economic ties with America became stronger. Moreover, the removal of racial and ethical barriers contributed to Canadian social affairs such as the huge wave of immigration and the baby boom. The Canadian government also had become more aware and involved in issues impacting Canadian citizens. Canada as a whole started identifying itself as an independent nation and participating in events that brought a positive reputation amongst them. These economical, social, and legal changes helped Canada mature into the country it is today.
In the year of 1867 the nation we know as Canada came into being. The Confederation in this year only came about after things had been overcome. Many political and economic pressures were exerted on the colonies and a federal union of the colonies seemed to be the most practical method of dealing with these pressures and conflicts. While Confederation was a solution to many of the problems, it was not a popular one for all the colonies involved. In the Maritime colonies views differed widely on the topic. Some were doubtful, some were pleased, others were annoyed and many were hopeful for a prosperous future.1
Bryant, T., Raphael, D., Schrecker, T., & Labonte, R. (2011). Canada: A land of missed
"Oceans." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 May 2014.
Arctic sovereignty is an important issue for Canadians, because the Arctic makes up a significant amount of our land. Conflicts have arisen between many countries such as Denmark, Norway, Canada, the United States, and Russia on who should have sovereignty over the arctic region. As a result the Arctic council has been formed to find solutions to problems that arise from issues regarding the arctic region. However the Arctic Council has not been effective in accomplishing many things in terms of action. Another concern that Canadians have is the impact of global warming on Arctic sovereignty. Additionally, the conflict over the Arctic has also caused concern between the relationship of Canada with the United States. While this may be a major
Currently, International system is focusing on issues related with maritime security. Maritime security coxncern with threats that prevail in the maritime domain (Klein 2011; Kraska and Pedrozo 2013; Roach 2004; Vrey 2010, 2013). These threats include interstate-dispute, terrorism, piracy, drugs trafficking, people and illicit foods, arms proliferation, illegal fishing, environmental crimes, as well as accidents and disaster which happen in maritime domain. Thus, generally, maritime security can be defined as the absence of those threats. Meanwhile, there is an argument that inter-states dispute should be categorized as national security instead of maritime security. Thus, there is another definition of maritime security which define maritime security as good or stable order at sea (Till 2004; Vrey 2010; Kraska and Pedrozo 2013: 1). The definition of maritime security from one to another is different as the scope of maritime security is broad and each actor has different point of view on the issue. There is no universal legal definition about maritime security. The United Nation itself only