Arctic Sovereignty
Kyle Tymoszewicz
Mr. Ruttan
Integrated Independent Study - Issue Based
May 10, 2013
Preface
!
The purpose of this report is to educate the reader about the territorial disputes
between northernmost countries in the Arctic Circle. The lands and waters in the Arctic
Circle are considered to be of significant value to those countries that claim possession
of them, due to the size of the areas in dispute, their geographical position and the
potential extraction of valuable resources from the seabed that lies far below. The issue
that engulfs these waters and lands in the northern area of the world, known as the
circumpolar region, is the issue of Arctic sovereignty. The issue of sovereignty over the
circumpolar region is due to the geographical situation of countries such as Canada,
Denmark (through Greenland), Norway, Russia and the United States. Each of the
aforementioned countries has staked a claim for land or waters in the circumpolar
region, which has created an issue with regard to territorial borders and boundaries, as
well as sovereignty over the land.
!
Over the course of history, the word sovereignty has been interpreted in many
ways, to include aspects of authority, power, independence and control. Despite the
varying definitions of the word, the definition of sovereignty appears to have a central
theme, a theme of “supreme authority within a territory”, as defined by the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010). Using the aforementioned definition, it is to be
inferred that if a country has sovereignty over a territory, complete control over the use
of that land, for any intent or purpose, is afforded to that country.
2
!
Given the value of the lands and waters in the circumpolar region, it is easy to
understand the proximal countries’ desire to obtain formal sovereignty over the region.
To obtain dominion over a portion of the circumpolar region, a country must submit legal
documentation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf with proof that
the land it is attempting to claim is an extension of the country’s continental shelf. If the
continental shelf is claimed to be longer that 200 nautical miles away from the
established borders of the applying country, an application can be made,
(Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2012). Up to this point, all countries
with land in the circumpolar region have actively participated in the gathering of data to
provide evidence to support their claims of circumpolar territory.
!
Due to the geographical location of the circumpolar region, there are distinctive
advantages to possessing large plots of circumpolar land. These advantages include,
but are not limited to: potential control over previously deemed international straits;
access to hydrocarbons in the form of fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil; access to
diverse fishing locations scattered throughout the circumpolar regions; closer proximity
to other developed countries; possible advantages during times of war and a stronger
voice in the development of environmental practices and laws in the circumpolar region.
Having sovereignty over sections of the circumpolar region offers tremendous
advantage to proximal countries and therefore, they attempt to capitalize on the shaping
of the Arctic lands and waters.
3
Summary of Research Methods
!
This report contains a study of the international laws as determined by the United
Nations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Along with the
international laws studied are encyclopedias, newspaper articles and documentaries. An
extensive list of sources are linked to Canadian government websites, particularly those
sites which pertain to Canada’s role in the issue of polar sovereignty and the initiatives
and actions Canada is taking, as this information pertains directly to the Connections to
Canada section. To further illuminate the Canadian viewpoint, websites of the
Parliament of Canada have also been researched. By examining multiple sources of
literature on the subject, the issue of polar sovereignty is described through various
viewpoints and opinions, leading to a well-developed description of the disputes present
and potential solutions created to resolve them. It is through the multitude of sources
analyzed that the legitimacy of the issue, the historical context of the issue, the role of
control and religious/spiritual influences, the logic of evil regarding the varying opinions
about the issue, the role of international organizations in dealing with the issue and how
the issue affects all countries studied and the proposed solutions, are explained and
analyzed effectively.
4
Background
!
Repeatedly over the course of history, the human race has shown a tendency to
desire greater dominion over the lands in which we live. To obtain these vast amounts of
land, the typical procedure is to inquire about the availability of the desired lands, if
already claimed, and if diplomatic negotiation proves to be of no use, the party that
desires the land may fight to claim it. In the case of the attainment of Alaska, negotiation
proved to be useful.
!
Members of the Russian population first began to permanently settle in Alaska in
1784, on Kodiak Island, with the Russian-American Company created in 1799 (Gordon,
2007). In 1857, Tsar Alexander II wished to sell the land, as he believed it would prove
too costly to defend Alaska if it were to be attacked by British North America. However,
because the Crimean War was fought from 1854 to 1856, Russia and Britain were not
allies and as a result, Russia was not willing to sell Alaska to Britain. As a result, Eduard
de Stoeckl, the Russian diplomat to the United States in 1857, was instructed by the
Tsar to negotiate the sale of Alaska to the United States, if at all possible, as there was
also fear of American dominion over North America, which would include Alaska. To put
an end to such fears, the sale of Alaska was successfully negotiated between the
United States and Russia, with the United States acquiring Alaska for a sum of $7.2
million in 1867 (His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, 1867).
!
5
!
Since the year 983, the island of Greenland has been strongly influenced by the
European nations (History of Nations, 2004). This influence was maintained by various
European countries, with the settlement of Greenland and the spread of Christianity
amongst the indigenous population in the 1730s. Denmark’s claim to the island of
Greenland was upheld by the World Court in 1933 (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 1984).
This ruling has led to Danish rule over Greenland; however, in 1979 Greenland was
given the right to self-govern, but is still subject to Danish influence regarding natural
resources and foreign affairs in the present day (History of Nations, 2004).
!
For centuries, Canada has been home to a series of conflicts concerning the
sovereignty over the land (Canada History, 2013). These conflicts extend from the
fighting between French and British troops in the 1700s, as well as the War of 1812
between the Americans and British. Through British victory, Canada was under British
domain until the passing of the British North America Act in 1867, which spurred
Canadian confederation and the swearing in of Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John
A. MacDonald. In 1880, the remaining British possessions in the Arctic, including “all
islands adjacent to any such territories” which included the Arctic archipelago, were
transferred to Canada which Canada uses to establish cases for claims of sovereignty
over Arctic waters and lands (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2012). In 1999, Canada
made a significant change, with what was formerly the Northwest Territories being
divided to create the new territory of Nunavut, meaning “our land” in the Inuit language
Inuktitut (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Department Canada, 2010).
6
!
Over the course of both Russian and Norwegian history, the lands situated in the
Arctic Circle that currently belong to each country have long been controlled by the
countries and as such, do not have the same historical background as the Canadian
Arctic archipelago or the American acquisition of Alaska from Russia.
!
In the past 60 years, the Arctic has played a very important geopolitical role in
international relations and defenses, as the Arctic separated Canada and the United
States from Russia throughout the duration of the Cold War (Mychajlyszyn, 2008). The
potential for Russian ballistic missiles to be fired across the Arctic was a prominent
threat to North America and this situation led to the creation of North American defense
mechanisms such as the Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD), as well as the
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) (North American Aerospace
Defense Command, 2012).
!
More recently, there have been controversial moments regarding the sovereignty
of the circumpolar region, such as the Russian Arkitka 2007 expedition (Wikipedia,
2013). As a result of the titanium Russian flag placed on the seabed of the North Pole,
statements were exchanged by both Peter MacKay, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister,
and Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. Alongside these words was a
statement by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who said: “[Russian] President
[Vladimir] Putin assured me that he meant no offense, nor any intention to violate any
international understanding or any Canadian sovereignty in any way” (Council on
Foreign Relations, 2007). Situations such as the situation that occurred with the Arkitka
7
2007 expedition demonstrate the diplomacy with which sovereignty issues have, and
are currently, dealt with. The situation regarding the Arkitka 2007 will be examined
further in the Russia Case Study portion of the report.
!
Regarding the safety of the Arctic, the circumpolar region has been fortunate in
that it has not experienced more than one widespread oil spill (Exxon Valdez, 1989)
however, extremely unfortunate in that the Exxon Valdez tanker was directly responsible
for the death of approximately “250,000 sea birds, 22 killer whales, 2,800 sea otters,
300 harbor seals and thousands of fish” (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013) as a result of the
250,000 barrels of crude oil spilled into the waters of Prince William Sound. It is also
believed that Arctic activities such as exploration and drilling will lead to another oil spill
in the Arctic region in the near future, which would prove extremely dangerous as there
are no adequate technologies or solutions to clean up oil that has been dispersed into
the broken sea ice of the Arctic region.
!
In spite of the fact that there remains no specific solution to dealing with oil spills
in the icy waters of the circumpolar region, numerous multinational oil and gas
corporations continue to pay for the rights to extract and process the oil and gas
reserves that remain in the Arctic region. Interest in the Arctic and its potential oil and
gas reserves are spurred by a 2008 United States Geological Survey which estimates
that approximately 90 billion barrels of oil remain undiscovered north of the Arctic Circle
(USGS, 2008). Companies such as Petro Canada, Panarctic Oils Ltd. and Dome
8
Petroleum explored the Canadian Arctic waters during the 1970s and 1980s, drilling 176
wells and extracting approximately 1.9 billion barrels of oil (Wikipedia, 2013).
!
Drilling in the Canadian Arctic began to be seen as too complex, expensive and
dangerous, but other countries such as Russia, which began the construction of the first
commercial offshore oil development in the Arctic, the Prirazlomnoye Field, in 2011
(Staalesen, 2012) and Greenland, which have offered 8 licenses for exploration and
extraction along the coast of Baffin Bay, continue to view the Arctic as a region filled
with potentially lucrative natural resources awaiting extraction (Wikipedia, 2013).
!
!
As demonstrated, the sovereignty and geographical location of the Arctic and
surrounding lands has, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the formation
of the modern world and the events that have occurred over the course of time.
9
Contributions of an Expert
!
The controversy that surrounds the circumpolar region is not only precipitated by
political unrest between competing nations, but exacerbated by different interpretations
of the circumstances by the proximal countries. As a result, the value of an expert
opinion on the issues regarding the circumpolar region is heightened, as an expert is
able to deliver an unbiased opinion, based on fact.
!
Such is the case with Canadian-born author Dr. Michael Byers. Dr. Byers
received degrees from the University of Saskatchewan, McGill University, and his Ph.D.
at Cambridge University (Wikipedia, 2013). Dr. Byers is the author of Canadian
bestsellers “Intent for a Nation” and “Who Owns the Arctic?”. Dr. Byers holds the
Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of
British Columbia (Byers, 2013). He regularly contributes to newspapers such as the
Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, and leads projects for Canadian government-funded
ArcticNet, researching the issues surrounding the Northwest Passage and hydrocarbon
reserves in the Arctic Ocean.
!
Michael Byers is known for his knowledge on international law, specifically
regarding the issues of Arctic sovereignty and the role of each country involved in the
process of the formation of the circumpolar region.
10
!
Recently, Dr. Byers wrote the book “Who Owns the Arctic?”, which meticulously
describes each disputed area between countries in the circumpolar region, along with
the history leading to the issue and the potential solutions. In his book, Dr. Byers
expresses a great deal of concern regarding the use of fossil fuels and the
environmental ramifications of the global consumption of fossil fuels, detailing how “the
Arctic is in crisis” and that “there is only one way to preserve the North in anything
approaching its natural state, and that is to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the south.” (Byers, 2013).
!
Upon the conclusion of Dr. Byers’ book, he provides a list of “agreed
recommendations” that were the result of conferences between teams of American and
Canadian representatives comprised of non-governmental experts (Dr. Byers was a
participant on the Canadian side). The end result of this conference produced a
comprehensive list of recommendations to the American and Canadian governments for
consideration, to assist in the resolution of the disputes between Canada and the United
States over waters in the Beaufort Sea, amongst others (Byers, 2013).
!
Dr. Byers continually demonstrates an unwavering commitment to exploring
potential solutions to the disputes surrounding lands and waters in the circumpolar
region, by applying the wealth of knowledge and plethora of skills acquired through his
education. Hopefully, Dr. Byers will be officially recognized for his efforts to help solve
issues that will change the face of the earth as we know it.
11
Role of Control
!
Control over the circumpolar region is crucial to the development of the modern
world. It is believed the Arctic is home to almost a quarter of the earth’s undiscovered oil
and gas reserves (Isachenkov, 2011). As a result, sovereignty over the Arctic waters is
highly valued for the potential extraction of these natural resources, and the
socioeconomic benefits that will follow. In fact, countries awarded large plots of
circumpolar waters and land will be at a great advantage economically, to the point at
which certain aspects of the global economy such as hydrocarbon extraction may be
dominated by a select group of countries, crippling the economies of countries with no
such access. However, there are environmental risks if part of the extraction process
was to malfunction.
!
Although the extraction of these natural resources could prove to be a very
profitable business venture, the extraction also has potential environmental and societal
implications, specifically pertaining to the northern Inuit peoples. If, in the process of
extracting natural resources, something were to go awry, environmental disaster could
ensue, harming a large percentage of the organisms in an ecozone (Grant, 2012).
Despite the potential wealth that accompanies the extraction of the Arctic resources,
there is also potential for negative consequences, as described by Valery Kryukov and
Gary Wilson, who write that “Although oil and gas development can bring substantial
benefits to northern regions, such development can also have negative impacts on the
environment and the lifestyles of northern people” (n.d., para. 4).
12
!
With regard to the changes in climate and geography of the Arctic region, Dr.
Morten Rasch, head of the Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring program in Denmark,
believes that “Things are happening much faster than what any scientific model
predicted” (Booman Tribune, 2012). In response to the unpredicted changes in climate,
new levels of interest have been sparked in oil and gas companies who wish to extract
the precious resources from the underground reserves. Accompanying these new levels
of interest are ads that promote oil and gas drilling and attack governments and
government leaders that do not portray themselves as pro-oil. In a report by the Times,
oil and gas companies spent more than $153 million US in 2012 to air advertisements
that attacked President Barack Obama, asserting he was “insufficiently pro-oil”. While
the opinions of oil and gas companies do not hold much weight regarding the use of the
Arctic waters and land, said companies have demonstrated that all possible sources of
pressure will be explored in their search for greater mining rights.
!
In order to attempt to eliminate risks due to extraction of natural resources, the
government of the sovereign country must be willing to implement laws prohibiting
unsafe drilling practices and extraction of the resources in order to prevent a
catastrophe from occurring. However, solutions to problems such as this can only be
determined once the sovereign country has been clearly identified in relation to each
disputed territory in the circumpolar region.
13
!
The role of the United Nations is pivotal to the resolution of the disputes over the
waters in the circumpolar region. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Laws of
the Sea (UNCLOS) is “the most comprehensive attempt at creating a unified regime of
governance of the rights of nations with respect to the world’s oceans” (The
Encyclopedia of Earth, 2010, para. 1). Through UNCLOS, the world has a formal
document through which all of the world’s oceans can be governed, which will prove to
be extremely valuable in resolving the disputes over the Arctic waters.
!
UNCLOS has created distinctive categories for the waters that surround a
country’s land and baseline border (Wikipedia, 2013). These categories include: internal
waters, territorial waters, archipelagic waters, contiguous zones, exclusive economic
zones and continental shelves. The dominion of a country and said country’s access to
the area’s natural resources, amongst other things, is based upon which category
wherein the specific ocean area is located in relation to the country. If, for example, a
specific area was determined to be located in internal waters, the sovereign country
would have the right to exploit the resources as well as govern and regulate the area.
!
Due to the ratification of the UNCLOS documents by over 160 countries to date,
the Laws of the Sea created by UNCLOS are paramount in determining sovereignty
over waters in the circumpolar region (United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the
Law of the Sea, 2013). In order to prove sovereignty in an area of the Arctic waters, a
country claiming ownership of the waters must submit a proposal to the United Nations,
attempting to prove that the claimed lands are an extension of a continental shelf of the
14
continent in which the country is located. This concept will be explained in greater detail
in the case studies section of the report.
!
The greatest benefit to be derived from sovereignty of the waters in the
circumpolar region is certainly access to natural resources (such as fishing, fresh water
and hydrocarbon reserves) and the right to control the passage of foreign vessels
through the waters. Sovereignty over the waters in the circumpolar region will greatly
affect foreign trade, as the sovereignty over the Northwest Passage (located in close
proximity to Canada) may potentially permit worldwide use of a shipping route that
would cut down the distance ships currently travel from the Atlantic to East Asia by
7,000 kilometers, when compared to the route of the Panama canal (Byers, 2010).
!
Undeniably, the circumpolar region is an area of untapped potential, with much to
be gained and lost. The sovereignty over the waters lies within the hands of the United
Nations, which reviews the proposals of each country attempting to claim a portion of
the region, and has the final say in the shaping of one of the most important regions in
the modern world.
15
Religion and Spirituality
!
In examining the religious and spiritual influences that encompass the global
issue of Arctic sovereignty, one must understand the religious and/or spiritual beliefs of
those affected by the matter. Involved in the issue of Arctic sovereignty are: Western
Europeans and North Americans (Canada, United States, Denmark, Norway), Eastern
Europeans (Russia) and the Inuit peoples who live in close proximity to the
geographical North Pole (Casselman, 2008).
!
In the Western European and North American countries, the influence of the
Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are quite prominent, with
approximately 77% percent of Americans, Canadians and Norwegians claiming to be
Christian, as well as approximately 80% of Denmark’s population claiming to be
members of the Church of Denmark, which is a Lutheran church (Wikipedia, 2013). The
Islamic religions do not play a large role in the issues involving the aforementioned
countries; however, Judaism plays a small role in that it is represented in a small
percentage of the population in some of the proximal countries.
!
Due to widespread belief in one of the Abrahamic religions, these countries have
all participated in colonialism and imperialism in some way or another. It is stated in the
book of Genesis, a book central to all Abrahamic religions, that:
16
“God created man in his own image; ... male and female he
created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them,
'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and
have dominion . . .’” (Genesis1:27- 28, RSV).
This quote taken from the Book of Genesis has greatly influenced the Western
perspective on land and dominion over such lands. Repeatedly through history this
mindset of sovereignty and ownership over land, and the need to subdue it, has
perpetuated the colonialist and imperialist efforts that dominated the 19th and 20th
centuries.
!
The passage describes how man “was created in God’s image” and how he must
“subdue the land” and “have dominion”. If taken literally, one could argue that these
views have led to global issues such as global warming and Arctic sovereignty. If it is
permissible to subdue and have dominion over land, this in turn will lead to greed and
competition in the quest to acquire land. Instead of being generous with the valuable
resources, waters and lands in the circumpolar regions, Western countries are seeking
ownership of the precious waters of the Arctic Ocean in order to subdue and dominate
the region for the purpose of extracting natural resources for economic gain. This
mindset undermines the well being of the earth’s ecosystems and ozone layer as it has
been documented that the consumption of fossil fuels has a negative affect on the
earth’s atmosphere (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2008).
17
!
Aside from the environmental ramifications, certain countries are unwilling to
compromise and maintain that they are fully entitled to the lands, which undermines
solutions proposed for countries such as Canada and Denmark to simply share an
island of disputed territory, such as Hans Island (Byers, 2013).
!
While not as strong as the influence on contemporary Western society, there is
still a prominent Christian religious influence on contemporary Russian society.
Approximately 41% of Russian citizens are faithful to the Russian Orthodox religion,
which is a sub-category of Christianity (Wikipedia, 2013).
!
Despite the large influence that Abrahamic religions have on the aforementioned
countries, Abrahamic religions do not influence the perspective or opinions of the Inuit
peoples who reside in the Arctic. Traditionally, Inuit peoples are known to treat human
beings, the land, animals and plants with equal respect. Through the Circumpolar
Declaration on Sovereignty of the Arctic, the Inuit Circumpolar Council confirmed the
role of the Inuit people in the decision-making regarding the circumpolar regions, and as
well, provided a reason for the Inuit perspective on the issues to be heard (Inuit
Circumpolar Council, 2009). This declaration attempts to convey that the Inuit
perspective should be respected, as Inuit peoples from Canada, Greenland, America (in
Alaska) and Russia (in Chukota) all signed off on the document which supports the idea
that the Inuit should have a say in resolving the issues at hand.
18
!
The role of the Inuit will prove to be crucial to the issues regarding Arctic
sovereignty as the Inuit peoples have a drastically different belief system which will
conflict with the religious perspective of the predominantly Christian nations. The Inuit
peoples do not believe in the ownership of land, exemplified by the words of Zebedee
Nungak:
“In the nomadic times of our grandfathers, the land belonged to everybody,
yet belonged to nobody. Inuit wandered great distances freely without having
to worry about who owned what stretch of land or sea. If an area sustained
life, Inuit were there without a thought as to who would pretend to be owner
of it. So this question is perplexing, even today, to Inuit, whose historical
memory was unencumbered by the imperative to define ownership. How on
earth did our land end up belonging to the Crown?” (2003).
This viewpoint on land is derived from the Inuit belief in animism, as “the Inuit also
maintained shamanistic, polytheistic and animistic beliefs traditionally” (Meyer, n.d.,
para. 3). The belief that “everything is conscious” and that “everything has a soul” (New
World Encyclopedia, 2012, para. 1) is an integral part of the Inuit belief system. If oil
was released into the Arctic waters by a procedural error, the lives of Arctic animals may
be at risk, which the Inuit value equally with trees and vegetation to other humans (The
Canadian Encyclopedia, 2012) . It is in this way that Inuit religious beliefs play a large
role in the issue of Arctic sovereignty because the Arctic Inuit peoples place such a high
value on sustaining the environment and its inhabitants.
19
Logic of Evil
!
The “logic of evil” is an expression coined by Dave Morrison, head of the Global
Perspectives program (Welsh, 2011). The logic of evil serves to describe different
perspectives and demonstrates that opposing views on either side of an issue are both
valid when the reasoning in support of the view is understood. The logic of evil is a
concept that can be applied to nearly any issue with Arctic sovereignty being no
different.
!
As discussed in the preface, sovereignty over sections of the circumpolar region
offer numerous sources of potential wealth. The wealth of resources that lie in the
circumpolar region are scattered throughout the entire region and as such, it is
reasoned that dominion over a larger section of the region would provide greater
opportunities for resource extraction and subsequently, economic gain. As a result, the
reasoning behind the land claims made by various countries in close proximity to the
circumpolar region is easy to understand.
!
Whether it was through Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations or through the works of Karl Marx, the economic theory of
capitalism was created long before the value of the circumpolar region had reached the
same value as it currently holds (Smith, 1776). However, when the motives of the
countries involved are examined, nearly all ideas trace back to the basic capitalist ideal
that one should be able to acquire as much wealth as possible throughout the duration
20
of one’s life and grow to be as successful as possible. Consequently, the motives that
spark the interest of Arctic countries proximal to the circumpolar region are motives of
greed and economic gain, as well as nationalistic pride.
!
The strategic value of the circumpolar region was solidified at the outset of the
Cold War when intercontinental ballistic missiles were a threat to the well-being of both
capitalist North America and to the communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with
the threat of mutual destruction treading on the minds of both sides (Wikipedia, 2013).
As a bi-product of the fear that engulfed the opposing sides in the Cold War, defensive
systems such as NORAD were developed to prevent further attack from enemy
missiles. Due to the fact that the fastest method of attack via missiles from the NATO
countries to the Warsaw pact countries is across the Arctic Ocean, a greater value has
now been placed on the Arctic waters because of strategic location in times of war.
Control over the areas would allow for higher degrees of surveillance and defence
against ensuing enemy offensives.
!
There is a distinct advantage to sovereignty over the lands and waters and this
paper seeks to demonstrate the many perspectives on the issues surrounding the
circumpolar region, with specific reference to the case studies section later in the paper.
In addition one must first understand the concept of the logic of evil to better understand
the issues of the world and specifically, Arctic sovereignty.
21
Case Study: Denmark
!
The Danish are playing a role in the issue of Arctic sovereignty with their land
claims, specifically with their land claim over Hans Island as well as the borderline
between Canadian owned Ellesmere Island and the island of Greenland, which remains
under Danish rule (CASR, 2005).
!
The second largest patch of ice worldwide, known as Greenland, is a “semi-
autonomous possession of Denmark” (CASR, 2005). As a result, Greenland has been
afforded the ability to govern itself regarding matters that directly pertain to Greenland,
but is still governed by the Danish government when the matters are of Danish concern
as well (CASR, 2005). As a result, the government of Denmark plays a large role in
claims made regarding Greenland and the surrounding arctic areas.
!
Between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, lies Hans Island (Appendix A). Hans
Island is not a significantly big island, being only 1.3 square kilometers in size, but has
been the focal point of a longstanding dispute between the Canadian and Danish
governments. Through the signing of a treaty in 1973, the boundary between Canadian
owned land and Greenland was formed through the principle of equidistance (Mackrael,
2012). However, the border created through the use of the equidistance principle
crossed straight through Hans Island, so sovereignty over the island was left to be
determined later, with the boundary between countries simply drawn around it.
22
!
Although sovereignty over Hans Island has been disputed for several decades,
the island itself presents almost no direct economical value (Mackrael, 2012). Instead,
both countries simply wish to obtain Hans Island to further support other Arctic land
claims.
!
Hans Island is an interesting island because of how the territorial claims
regarding the island are currently being dealt with. Both Canada and Denmark have
been cordial, diplomatic and cooperative when negotiating sovereignty over the island,
even injecting a sense of humour into the claims made. This sense of humour was
created when the Danish military would leave behind a bottle of Schnapps for each visit
made, which was mirrored by the Canadian military, who would leave behind a bottle of
Canadian Club whiskey (Byers, 2009). While there have also been numerous flag
plants made by both countries, the island is still in negotiations with both groups
working towards a mutually agreed upon solution.
!
Despite the comedic efforts made by both countries, along with the respectful
negotiations, the dispute over Hans Island still remains. Regarding the solutions at hand
in determining the sovereignty over Hans Island, Michael Byers writes:
“It seems unlikely that either country will wish to take the domestic
political risk of losing the island before a panel of judges in the
Hamburg or The Hague. For the same reason, neither side is
about the surrender the island during the course of negotiations,
unless a compelling trade-off can be made” (Byers, 2009, pg 29)
23
!
As such, there are two potential solutions that are currently under consideration.
The first option is to have Hans Island split down the middle, allowing 50% of the island
to be governed under Canadian rule on the left and Danish rule on the right (Byers,
2009). This would allow each country to have full sovereignty over a portion of the
island, along with creating a new and short border between Canada and Europe.
!
The second option would mirror a model of sovereignty that is currently in place
with regard to Pheasant Island in the Bidasoa River between France and Spain. With
regard to Pheasant Island, the governments of France and Spain simply share the
sovereignty over the island by alternating responsibility over the island for periods of six
months at a time (Byers, 2009). If this system of sovereignty were to be utilized with
regard to Hans Island, both countries would participate in issues regarding the island,
which would ensure peaceful and respectful relations between the two nations.
24
Case Study: Russia
!
Russia, the world’s largest country geographically, is either currently involved in
territorial or sovereignty-based land claims throughout the circumpolar region, or has
just recently solved such issues, all of which concern either Norway, the United States
of America or Canada.
!
With regard to Norway, the Russian and Norwegian governments have disputed
sovereignty over the Barents Sea since the 1970s (Appendix B). Both Norway and
Russia had previously laid claims to an area of 175,000 square kilometers, which was
situated north of the Norwegian coast and Russia’s Kola peninsula (Harding, 2010).
Although the issue regarding the Barents Sea was initially based on the resources of
fish in the area and gradually morphed into a dispute over fish, oil and gas, the Russian
and Norwegian governments were able to negotiate a treaty which both countries
signed on September 15, 2010 in Murmansk, Russia (Ulfstein, 2011). It is thought that
the signing of the Barents Sea treaty was a practical solution and demonstrates how
issues regarding sovereignty in the Arctic should be dealt with (Harding, 2010).
!
Separating the eastern coast of Russian and American-owned Alaska, is the
Baker-Shevardnadze agreement (Wikipedia, 2013). The agreement was named after
the Russian and American officials who signed the deal, namely, United States
Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze.
The agreement separates the two countries through the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea,
25
with the larger portion of the land going to the United States. This, in turn, has prompted
many Russians to criticize Mikhail Gorbachev, President of the Soviet Union at the time,
and Edvard Shevardnadze for “rushing the deal, ceding the Russian fishing rights and
other maritime benefits” (Wikipedia, 2013), with most of those who criticize the
agreement insisting on renegotiation. However, the United States has no intention of
renegotiating the maritime boundaries laid out in the agreement, and instead focus their
efforts on enforcing the boundary against encroaching Russian vessels (Wikipedia,
2013). Although the agreement raises issues within Russia, the Russians have larger
claims to make, especially in the way of the Lomonosov Ridge.
!
According to Macleans magazine author Charlie Gillis, the Lomonosov Ridge can
be described as:
“towering, silt-covered furrow on the ocean floor begins from the
nexus of Ellesmere Island and Greenland, then runs some 1,800
km beneath the polar ice cap to an archipelago called the New
Siberian Islands. About halfway across, there is a single jag that
sticks a couple of hundred kilometers toward the Barents Sea. And
there, just below the point of the elbow, under about 4,200 m of
frigid water, lies the geographic North Pole” (2011).
As a result, the Lomonosov Ridge is of the utmost importance in relation to the claims of
sovereignty over the Arctic waters and lands. As the ridge runs between Canada’s
Ellesmere Island and Russia’s New Siberian Islands, both countries are able to make a
26
claim to the ridge as an extension of the country’s continental shelf, which would allow
the country whose claim is supported, to claim vast amounts of territory in the
circumpolar region (Fillingham, 2009).
!
Russia has the longest history of claiming the Lomonosov Ridge, beginning when
the Russian government submitted an official proposal to the United Nations Committee
on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on December 20, 2001 (Wikipedia, 2013). In the
proposal, the Russians claimed that the Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Ridge were
extensions of the Eurasian continent, which would extend Russians Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) to the geographic North Pole. While the proposal was neither rejected nor
accepted, the UN Committee recommended additional research to support the Russia
land claims.
!
On August 2, 2007, the Russian expedition Arkitka 2007, descended to the
seabed of the North Pole, for the first time in history. The expedition led to the gathering
of water and soil samples for analysis, as well as a controversial move by the expedition
members who planted a meter tall titanium Russian flag in the seabed of the North Pole
(Appendix C) (Parfitt, 2007). The planting of the flag elicited responses from other Arctic
countries such as Canada, with the Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay telling
CTV television “This isn’t the 15th century, you can’t go around the world and just plant
flags and say: ‘We’re claiming this territory’” (Parfitt, 2007).
27
!
To this day, Russia maintains its claim over the Lomonosov Ridge and
subsequently, a large section of the circumpolar region leading up to the North Pole.
However, both the Canadian and Danish governments are disputing these claims,
claiming that the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of Ellesmere Island and Greenland,
respectively (Ottawa Citizen, 2008). Although it is said the Russians could obtain close
to 5 billion metric tons of fuel from the Lomonosov Ridge (Rianovosti, 2007), no claims
have been confirmed by the UN Committee on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and
may not be confirmed for years to come. As a result, a solution to the sovereignty claim
over the Lomonosov Ridge will be decided by the United Nations after a thorough
review of the proposals of all countries with legitimate claims regarding the Lomonosov
Ridge.
28
Case Study: United States of America
!
It is possible for one to think that because 48 of the USA’s 50 states (96%) are
situated below Canadian land, that an American land claim in the Arctic region is
impossible. However, the two remaining states that remain forgotten at times are the
states of Hawaii and Alaska, with the latter in direct proximity to the Arctic territorial land
claims in dispute between Canada and the United States (CIA, 2003).
!
The disputed land claims pertain to the extended boundary between the
American state of Alaska and the Canadian Yukon territory, and more specifically, how
said boundary allots certain areas of land to each prospective country (Appendix D).
Due to the difference in perspectives on how the boundary should be created, there is a
disputed area approximately 6,250 square nautical miles left to be negotiated between
the two countries.
!
The disputed area is created because one strategy for creating the boundary
involves the principle of equidistance, whereas the opposing strategy aims to simply
extend the current Canadian-American boundary straight out into the Beaufort Sea
(Thompson, 2010). The Canadian position on the issue is that the boundary extends
from the border between Alaska and the Yukon Territory, along the 141st Meridian. The
American position is that the boundary should follow the principle of equidistance which
means from the borders of each country, which leads to the creation of the disputed
area (Appendix D). However, due to continued efforts between American and Canadian
29
representatives, there appears to be a solution that would satisfy both parties
participating in the discussion. As countries are allowed to claim up to 200 nautical miles
extending from the country’s shores, both countries will be able to a claim an area as
their own (Thompson, 2010). However, countries are allowed to extend their reach over
the 200 nautical mile mark if the seabed the country is connected to, extends further
than 200 nautical miles (UNCLOS, 1982). The shape of the seabed past 200 nautical
miles would force the American boundary to turn sharply west, which would allow
Canada to win a greater amount of the seabed than it would had the original Canadianfavored boundaries be implemented. As a result, the direction of the negotiations have
drastically changed. In the eyes of the United States, the more beneficial outcome
results from the originally proposed Canadian boundary line. Although the area has
been in dispute since 1970, it would appear as if a new, mutually agreed upon solution
is to be had in the Beaufort Sea, which would leave both parties satisfied.
!
The other dispute involving the Americans involves the classification of the
Northwest Passage, which is a direct shipping route that spans from Europe to Asia and
travels through the Arctic Ocean (Roach, 2007). The advantage to utilizing the
Northwest Passage as a shipping route is that a trip through the Northwest Passage will
allow ships to travel 7,000 kilometers less, each way, if the route is compared to the
current route through the Panama Canal (Appendix E). Despite the benefits that the
Northwest Passage presents to exports shipped internationally, the passage is still
largely disputed between the Canadian and American governments.
30
!
Currently, a large percentage of the ice that the Northwest Passage travels
through is frozen over year-round (CBC, 2008). However, the ice in Canadian Arctic
territory has shrunk 32 percent since the 1960s, with as much as 70,000 square
kilometers lost annually (CBC, 2008). As a result, there has been an increase in
worldwide interest in the Northwest Passage and how it will be used, which is exactly
where the issue between Canada and the United States lies.
!
The Northwest Passage runs from Europe to Asia and as a result, also runs
through the Canadian Archipelago. As it can be recalled from the background section of
this report, the Canadian government was granted complete sovereignty over the now
Canadian-owned Archipelago. The major dispute between the American and Canadian
governments is determining whether or not the section of the Northwest Passage
crossing through the Canadian Archipelago, is to be considered internal Canadian
waters or part of an international shipping route (Canwest News, 2008).
!
The debate was initially sparked when American vessels travelled through the
Northwest Passage in the years 1969 and 1985, both times without Canadian
permission (Canwest News, 2008). As a result, the Arctic Co-operation Agreement was
signed in 1988 by American President Ronald Reagan and Canadian Prime Minister
Brian Mulroney (CBC, 2008). The agreement states that the United States was not
allowed to send ships through the Northwest Passage without first obtaining Canadian
permission. Consequently, the agreement also stated that Canada would always give
consent to American ships traveling through the waters.
31
!
Contradicting this agreement however, was the first press conference made by
Stephen Harper in January 2006, where Prime Minister Harper stated “It is the
Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador to the United States”,
which was in reply to David Wilkins, the Canadian ambassador to the United States,
who reiterated the position of the United States government with regard to the
Northwest Passage and how it is an international strait (Byers, 2011). This statement by
Harper may have alarmed those in Washington had Wilkins’ predecessor, Paul Cellucci,
not revealed that he had asked the United States State Department to review
Washington’s position on the issue of the passage.
!
Cellucci’s reasoning for asking for the review was that, if the Northwest Passage
was deemed an international strait, it would be used by terrorist groups to transport
weapons of mass destruction through the relatively unguarded passage (Byers, 2011).
As a result of Cellucci’s concern and his contact with the State Department, Prime
Minister Harper now has another opening for further negotiations with the United States
as to sovereignty over the passage, and how issues such as those linked to terrorism
may be dealt with in the future.
!
Although it may appear that a solution has been brokered through the
negotiations of Mulroney and Reagan, the issue still remains. Is the Northwest Passage
an international strait, or internal Canadian waters? Michael Byers believes that the
Northwest Passage belongs to Canada and is therefore a series of Canadian internal
32
waters (Byers, 2009). Dr. Byers’ reasoning can be attributed to the current Canadian
land boundaries, or more importantly, the Canadian acquisition of Inuit sovereignty
rights in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993.
!
Although the focus of this section of the report is with regard to the influence of
the United States on the issues surrounding Arctic sovereignty and disputes therein, it
would appear the classification of the Northwest Passage does not, in fact, favor the
American position. That being the case, then part of the Northwest Passage would be
determined to be internal Canadian waters and Canada would be granted full ownership
and use over the waterways, as well as control over the use of the waterways by other
foreign countries. All American ships wishing to navigate the passageway would need to
request Canadian permission, which may or may not be granted as Canada would have
the ability to decide which ships pass through the passage and as a result, the Arctic
Co-operation Agreement would be overridden.
33
Connections to Canada
!
Sovereignty over the circumpolar region is an issue that is most relevant to the
countries within close proximity to the region and as such, Arctic sovereignty is an issue
that largely pertains to Canada. Canada has 40 percent of its land mass situated in the
circumpolar region, and a strong case is to be made for sovereignty over a vast majority
of the lands and waters (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2013). In spite
of the fact that Canada is already in such close proximity to the areas in dispute,
Canada has found a way to focus even more intently on the geopolitical situation of the
Arctic, led by the 2008 campaign of current Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper.
!
In the words of National Post writer John Ivison, Arctic sovereignty is often seen
as Stephen Harper’s “signature legacy project” (Ivison, 2012). Harper has developed an
annual trip in the summertime where he visits Canada’s North to show his continued
commitment to the area. Harper has continually used Arctic sovereignty as a key
component of his political platform, exemplified through quotes such as:
“The geopolitical importance of the Arctic and Canada’s interests
in it have never been greater. This is why our government has
launched an ambitious Northern Agenda based on the timeless
responsibility imposed by our national anthem, to keep the True
North strong and free.” (Harper, 2008).
Stephen Harper has known from day one that Arctic sovereignty would be one of the
most significant issues that Canada would have to deal with during his terms in office
34
and as the aforementioned quote would indicate, has maintained an adamant and
proactive stance towards upholding Canadian involvement in Arctic sovereignty issues.
!
Whether Canada acquired the Arctic Archipelago from the British in 1880 (The
Canadian Encyclopedia, 2012), or whether ownership of the Arctic Archipelago has
always been Canadian, in either case, it is apparent that the section of the Northwest
Passage should be classified as Canadian internal waters in the eyes of many
Canadians (Byers, 2009). A definition of internal waters provided by Wikipedia, which
stemmed from the UNCLOS document, describes internal waters as “all water and
waterways on the landward side of the baseline from which a nations territorial waters is
defined” (Wikipedia, 2013). If waters are determined to be a country’s internal waters,
said country is allowed to set laws and regulate the use of the waters. If the section of
the Northwest Passage that is in dispute between the United States and Canada is in
fact determined to be Canadian internal waters, all foreign vessels must receive
approval from Canada before navigating through the waters.
!
With regard to Hans Island, Canada finds itself engaged in a potentially
harmonious and fair engagement with Denmark which would allow two governing
bodies to take periodic control over the island or allow them to create a new border
between Europe and North America (Byers, 2009).
!
With regard to the Lomonosov Ridge, specifically the ownership of the ridge, the
most important piece of the puzzle is the work and data compiled by the Canadian
35
scientists who currently work to prove that the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of
Canada’s continental shelf (Ottawa Citizen, 2008). However, both Danish and Russian
scientists, respectively, are also working to prove that the Lomonosov Ridge is an
extension of their country’s continental shelf, so the matter must ultimately be decided
by the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (United
Nations, 2012).
!
Overall, the situation that Canada finds itself in surrounding the territorial
disputes in the Arctic is not a situation that should be of grave concern for Canadians.
Whether it be the dispute over Hans Island, or the Lomonosov Ridge, solutions to the
disputes are either currently under negotiation, or will be mediated by a respectable
third party, namely the United Nations.
36
International Organizations
!
A major group that works to protect the health and safety of the Arctic is the
Arctic Council (Arctic Council, 2013). The Arctic Council was formed in 1996 under the
Ottawa Declaration, which was described as establishing:
“the Arctic Council as a high-level intergovernmental forum to
provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and
interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the
Arctic Indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on
common Arctic issues; in particular, issues of sustainable
development and environmental protection in the Arctic”
(Arctic Council, 2013).
The Arctic Council has eight member states, with Chairmanship over the Arctic Council
rotating every two years between the member states. The member states are as
follows: Canada; United States of America; Finland; Iceland; Russia; Norway; Kingdom
of Denmark and Sweden. Alongside these member states are also six international
organizations that represent the Arctic Indigenous People, which all have permanent
status.
!
Inside the Arctic Council are six groups that are composed of experts from
ministries, government agencies and researchers. The six working groups of the Arctic
Council are: Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP); Arctic Monitoring and
37
Assessment Programme (AMAP); Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF);
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) and Sustainable Development
Working Group (SDWG).
!
The Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP) works with a mandate to
“increase efforts to limit and reduce emissions of pollutants into the environment and
promote international cooperation” (Arctic Council, 2013). The ACAP encourages
nations worldwide to take preventative action to reduce emissions in order to reduce the
risk of contamination via pollution.
!
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programe (AMAP) is responsible for
measuring the levels of pollutants in the Arctic environment; documenting the trends of
human pollution; reporting on how the pollutants in the Arctic waters affect the Arctic
environment as a whole; and to give advice on how the Arctic conditions can be
improved.
!
The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) is a group that works to
preserve the biodiversity of the Arctic region, by promoting practices that focus on
ensuring the sustainability of the Arctic’s living resources. The CAFF releases many
reports regarding the current state of the Arctic’s biodiversity, such as the “Arctic Report
Card: 2012” (Norduslod, n.d.). In recognition of the work done to preserve the
biodiversity of the Arctic, the chair of the CAFF’s Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring
Program (CBMP) Mike Gill and Joseph Culp, co-chair of CBMP’s Freshwater Monitoring
38
group recently received the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for their dedication of the
CAFF to Arctic Nature.
!
The Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group
(EPPR) is another working group of the Arctic Council which focuses on preventing,
preparing for and responding to environmental emergencies that occur throughout the
Arctic region (Arctic Council, 2013). This group has conducted many exercises such as
Radiation Emergency Exercises, should a potential hazard to the well-being of the
Arctic ever occur.
!
Further, there is the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment working group
(PAME). The PAME develops action programs and guidelines which help to protect the
marine environments as the Arctic region undergoes increased economic activity and
significant changes from the increased use of the Arctic waters (Arctic Council, 2013).
!
Because the Arctic is becoming increasingly accessible and known as a region
rich in natural resources, it faces potentially unsustainable development throughout the
region. However, the Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWU) strives to
protect the Arctic environments and economies from developing unsustainably, and
instead proposes steps that lead to sustainable development, which preserve the
environments and economies (Arctic Council, 2013).
39
!
Finally, there are the members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) (Arctic
Council, 2013). The ICC represents the Inuit peoples in Greenland/Denmark, Canada,
Alaska/USA and Chukotka/Russia and is a non-governmental organization that
represents approximately 150,000 Inuit peoples. Founded in 1977, the ICC has four
principal goals, which are:
“Strengthening unity among Inuit of the circumpolar region,
promoting Inuit rights and interest on an international level,
develop and encourage long-term policies that safeguard the
Arctic environment and seek full and active partnership in the
political, economic and social development of circumpolar
regions” (Arctic Council, 2013).
The ICC has taken an active role in working with the aforementioned divisions of the
Arctic Council by collaborating on a variety of sustainable development and
environmental issues and advocating for the rights of the Inuit peoples with respect to
how proposed solutions may impact the lives of the Inuit.
!
As set out above, there are a multitude of groups working to preserve the Arctic
waters and the circumpolar region. Although there has been a disastrous oil spill near
the Arctic ocean, specifically the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2013),
there has not been a major oil spill during the time of the Arctic Council, which may be
attributed to the efforts of the Arctic Council and its eight member states, which
diligently work to preserve the Arctic areas. It appears as if the efforts of the Arctic
40
Council are working effectively, and will continue to work effectively should they be
required to deal with a potentially disastrous situation.
!
Unlike the Arctic Council, which includes nearly all, if not all of the countries
prominent in the circumpolar region sovereignty disputes, less officially sanctioned
environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace work to advocate for the rights of
animals and wildlife in the region. The mandate of Greenpeace is to raise awareness as
to the consequences of increased Arctic activities on the environment (Greenpeace,
2013). By raising awareness on key environmental issues such as Climate Change, Oil
Drilling, Increased Exploitation of the Environment and Long-Range Pollution,
Greenpeace aims to make a positive contribution with regard to the resolution of
circumpolar disputes. It is the hope that governments will recognize and respond to the
voices of those opposing the privatization of the Arctic waters and take action to prevent
potential damage.
!
Through the combination of highly-regarded groups such as the Arctic Council
and less officially sanctioned groups such as Greenpeace, there are many effective
forums and groups that provide information and subsequently, offer solutions, to the
problems that engulf the circumpolar region.
41
Solutions
!
The disputes surrounding the circumpolar region, and the way in which these
disputes are managed and solved, will significantly influence how global disputes are
negotiated in the future. In addition, the solutions will newly define and influence how
Arctic countries are shaped geographically, function politically and grow economically.
As a result, the solutions to the disputes at hand must be carefully considered and, if
need be, determined by a reputable, neutral third party because of the far reaching
implications, as stated above.
!
The United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, is the
neutral third party required to mediate an agreement between countries involved in
these territorial disputes. If mediation is not effective, and a solution cannot be
effectively negotiated between countries, then the UN is in a position to stipulate an
alternate solution or award sovereignty to a country based on scientific evidence and
historical data.
!
Through diplomatic negotiation and mediation by the United Nations, all disputes
in the circumpolar region have the potential to be solved. The key element to all
negotiated settlements is time, and this is realistic in that the disputes at hand do not
present an imminent threat, but instead must be decided after thorough and extensive
investigation.
42
Conclusion
!
The Arctic should not be viewed as an area of potential war and turmoil but rather
an area that is being transformed. The countries involved in the circumpolar territorial
disputes are each attempting to protect nationalistic interests and in the case of the Inuit
people, they are attempting to protect a way of life. There are many competing interests
and in some cases, such as Hans Island, compromises can be made such as Canada
and Denmark each governing the region six months of the year. However, other
disputes are more controversial, such as the Lomonosov Ridge. Diplomatic negotiations
are on going and it is currently up to foreign diplomats and governing bodies to present
their case surrounding sovereignty. The implications are far-reaching in that whatever is
decided will potentially transform the geo-political landscape of the Arctic. However, at
the same time, there is no immense emergency or threat and therefore, countries must
give the matter a carefully weighed and thorough examination while investigating all
potential solutions. In time, it is hoped that the region is no longer besieged in territorial
disputes and those countries with a vested interest can work harmoniously so that the
wealth and prosperity of the region may be realized and protected.
43
Bibliography
“Canada History”. (2013). Canada History. Retrieved from
!
http://www.canadahistory.com/timeline.asp
“Canada Kicks Ass”. (2013). Birth of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.canadaka.net
“CBCNews”. (2009, November 26). MP urges Harper to act in Beaufort Sea dispute.
CBCNews. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/
“Facts: Cold, Icy and Arctic”. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.athropolis.com/arctic
“Kiviuq’s Journey”. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.unipka.ca/Inuit_Ways.html
“Michael Byers Biography”. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://byers.typepad.com/about.html
“The Inuit”. (n.d.). Retrieved from
!
http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_groups/fp_inuit5.html
“Wikipedia”. (n.d.) Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org
(2012, October 13). Animism. In New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
!
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Animism
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. (2010, September 15). Nunavut September 2003. Retrieved from http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. (2011, July 13). Arctic Council Oil
and Gas Assessment. Retrieved by https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/
Arctic Council Chairmanship Secretariat. (2013). Arctic Council. Retrieved from http://
www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/history
Arctic Sovereignty and environment. (2012, November 21). The Argosy: Mount Allison’s
Independent Student Newspaper. Retrieved from http://argosy.mta.ca/index.php
44
Bidder, B., Schepp, M., & Traufetter, G. (2012, August 24). ‘The Black Plague’: Russia
Plays Game of Arctic Roulette in Oil Exploration. Retrieved from
!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/
Borgir, N. (n.d.). CBMP members win prestigious award. Retrieved from http://
www.caff.is/press-releases/760-cbmp-members-win-prestigious-award
Boswell, R. (2010, March 9). Canada non-committal over U.S. position on Beaufort Sea
dispute. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+committal
+over+position+Beaufort+dispute/2662672/story.html
Byers, M. (2009, October 28). The Northwest Passage is already Canadian. The Globe
and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/thenorthwest-passage-is-already-canadian/article4356756/
Byers, M. (2011, July 5). Guest Column: Time, Canada, to negotiate the Northwest
Passage. CBC. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/05/fvp-byers-northwest-passage.html
Campbell, J. (2012, May 31). Hans Island deal downplayed. The Ottawa Citizen.
Retrieved from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa/6475505/story.html
Canwest News Service. (2008, August 18). Part 4: Who owns the Northwest Passage?
Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features/arcticambitions/
story.html?id=de0a569c-1ec6-478c-9fd0-a45622e2fe9a
Casselman, A. (n.d.). The Earth Has More Than One North Pole. Retrieved from
!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article
CBC. (2006, August 8). The Arctic Grail. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/
background/northwest-passage/
45
CBC. (2012, September 12). Sovereignty Issues Loom as Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks. The
Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/12/arcticcanada-sovereignty-russia-denmark-norway_n_1876502.html
Chase, S. (2012, August 23). Canada confident of claim on Arctic underwater mountain
range. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/
politics/canada-confident-of-claim-on-arctic-underwater-mountain-range/
article4326114/
Chillymanjaro. (2012, August 11). Rapid ice melt opens Arctic’s Northern Passage.
Retrieved from http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/08/11/sea-ice-retreatsnorthwest-passage/
Chung, A. (2007, August 12). The Arctic Cold War. The Star. Retrieved from
!
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2007/08/12/the_arctic_cold_war.html
Council on Foreign Relations. (1933, December 26). Montevideo Convention on the
Rights and Duties of States. Retrieved from
!
http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention
Council on Foreign Relations. (2007, September 25). A Conversation with Stephen
Harper [Rush Transcript; Federal News Service]. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/
canada/conversation-stephen-harper-rush-transcript-federal-news-service/p14315
Dawkins, P. (2011, November 11). Securitisation of the Arctic Circle. Retrieved from
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/11/11/securitisation-of-the-arctic-circle/
DeMille, D. (n.d.). Denmark ‘Goes Viking’ in Canada’s Arctic Islands - Strategic
Resources of the High Arctic entice the Danes. Retrieved from http://www.casr.ca/
id-arcticviking1.htm
46
Discovering the Arctic. Troubled waters: What are the Northwest and Northeast
Passages? Retrieved from http://www.discoveringthearctic.org.uk/
1_northwest_northeast_passages.html
Embassy of the United States Brussels. (n.d.) How many states are there in the U.S.?
Retrieved from http://belgium.usembassy.gov/
how_many_states_are_there_in_the_u.s.html
Fillingham, Z. (2009, April 8). Arctic ownership claims. Retrieved from http://
www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/arctic-ownership-claims
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2012, August 15). Canada’s Extended
Continental Shelf. Retrieved from
!
http://www.international.gc.ca/continental/index.aspx?view=d
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2012, October 26). Arctic Council.
Retrieved from http://www.international.gc.ca/polar-polaire/council-conseil.aspx?
view=d
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2012, September 26). The Northern
Dimension of Canada’s Foreign Policy. Retrieved from
!
http://www.international.gc.ca/polar-polaire/ndfp-vnpe2.aspx?view=d
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2013, January 29). Exercising
Sovereignty and Promoting Canada’s Northern Strategy Abroad. Retrieved from
http://www.international.gc.ca/polar-polaire/canada_arctic
Fraser, W. (2012, June). Inuit View on Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty. Retrieved from
http://www.arcticjournal.ca/index.php/2012/05/inuit-view-on-canada
47
Gillis, C. (2011, July 25). Who owns the North Pole? Macleans. Retrieved from http://
www2.macleans.ca/tag/lomonosov-ridge/
Gordon, J., S. (2007, October 18). Why Did Russia Sell Us Alaska So Cheap?
Retrieved from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913255/posts
Greenpeace. (2013). Our Campaigns. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org/
canada/en/campaigns/Energy/Arctic/Learn-about/
Harding, L. (2010, September 15). Russian and Norway resolve Arctic border dispute.
The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/
russia-norway-arctic-border-dispute
Harper, K. (2005). Hans’ History. Retrieved from http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/
hansIsland/background.asp
History of Nations. (2004). History of Greenland. Retrieved from
!
http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/greenland.html
Hollis, D., & Rosen, T. (2013, Feb 26). United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), 1982. In Wright, D. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Earth. Retrieved from
!
http://www.eoearth.org/article/
United_Nations_Convention_on_Law_of_the_Sea_(UNCLOS),_1982
!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-northwestpassage.html
Ibbitson, J. (2011, January 27). Dispute over Hans Island nears resolution. Now for the
Beaufort Sea. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://byers.typepad.com/arctic/
2011/01/dispute-over-hans-island-nears-resolution-now-for-the-beaufort-sea.html
Inuit Tapirit Kanatami. (n.d.). ITK Origins. Retrieved from
48
!
https://www.itk.ca/about-itk/itk-origins
Isachenkoc, V. (2011, November 11). ‘It’s our shores’: Medvedev pushes Russia’s
control of the Arctic. The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/world/
Ivison, J. (2012, May 17). Stephen Harper’s Arctic sovereignty legacy starting to cool.
National Post. Retrieved from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/17/
john-ivison-stephen-harpers-arctic-sovereignty-legacy-starting-to-cool-off/
Jon. (2008, May 8). Polar Ice. Retrieved from
!
http://youthambassadors.barrie.ca/global2008/
Lomonosov Ridge Could Bring Russia 5 Billion Tons of Extra Fuel. (2007, October 4).
Ria Novosti. Retrieved from http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071001/81830517.html
Mackrael, K. (2012, November 30). Canada, Denmark closer to settling border dispute.
The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/
national/canada-denmark-closer-to-settling-border-dispute/article5831571/?
page=all
Meyer, L. (n.d.). Sami Noaidi and Inuit Angakoq: Traditional Shamanic Roles and
Practices. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/courses/sami/diehtu/siida/
shaman/inuit.htm
Morrow, A. (2011, August 1). Denmark prepares to claim North Pole. The Globe and
Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/denmarkprepares-to-claim-north-pole/article588930/
Muchajlyszyn, N. (2008, October 24). The Arctic: Canadian Security and Defence.
Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/
49
Mychajlyszyn, N. (2008, October 24). The Arctic: Geopolitical Issues. Retrieved from
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0806-e.htm
Natural Resources Defense Council. (n.d.). The Consequences of Global Warming.
Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons.asp
Niseteo, I. (2012, December 3). Citation Guide: APA (6th ed., 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/writing/apa
North American Aerospace Defense Command. (2012, December 31). A Brief History of
NORAD. Retrieved from
!
http://www.norad.mil/about/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20NORAD.pdf
Nungak, Z. (n.d.). Inuit perspectives on land ownership. Retrieved from
!
http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/inuit
Parfitt, T. (2007, August 2). Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed. The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic
Penn State University Libraries. (2013, Janurary 21). APA In-Text Citation Guide.
Retrieved from http://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/lls/students/intext.html
Pew Charitable Trusts. (n.d.). Oceans North: Protecting Life in the Arctic. Retrieved from
http://oceansnorth.org/oil-spills
Philpott, D. (Ed.). (2010, June 8). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Sovereignty.
Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/
Quaile, I. (2013, April 2). Polar ice sheets melting faster than ever. Retrieved from http://
www.dw.de/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-ever/a-16432199
50
Research backs Canada’s Arctic claim. (2008, August 7). The Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved
from http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d3846843ef59-4165-ae3f-ffa4e313e4c4
Roach, J. (2007, September 17). Arctic Melt Opens Northwest Passage. National
Geographic. Retrieved from
Rolston, H. (n.d.). Dominion. Retrieved from
!
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hrolston/Dominion.pdf
Rosenbery, M. (2012, November 9). Biggest Countries: The Twenty Largest Countries in
Area in the World. Retrieved from http://geography.about.com/od/
countryinformation/a/bigcountries.htm
Ross, K. (2008, May 8). Religious and Cultural Oppression of Women. Retrieved from
http://youthambassadors.barrie.ca/global2008/ISUS/Kirstie.htm
Sadler, C. (2005, November). Staking a Claim: Hans Island and Canada’s Arctic
Sovereignty. Retrieved from http://www.opencanada.org/wp-content/uploads/
2011/05/SD-131-Sadler1.pdf
Salnik, V. (2013, July 3). Barents Sea of discord for Russia and Norway. Retrieved from
http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/07-03-2013/124001-russia_norway-0/
Sarasota Herald-Tribune. (1984, May 7). When Did Greenland Join Denmark? Sarasota
Herald-Tribune. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. (5th
ed.). London: Methuen & Co.
51
Staalesen, A. (2011, February 2). No dispute over Lomonosov Ridge. The Barents
Observer. Retrieved from http://barentsobserver.com/en/sections/politics/nodispute-over-lomonosov-ridge
Staalesen, A. (2012, September 19). At Prirazlomnoe, more scandals but no oil:
Russia’s first Arctic oil platform has been lying idle in the Pechora Sea for more
than a year. The first oil will come only “sometime in the first half of 2013”. The
Barents Observer. Retrieved from http://barentsobserver.com/en/energy/
prirazlomnoye-more-scandals-no-oil-19-09
Steven, D. (2012, September 20). Profiting from Climate Change? Oil & Gas
Companies Rush to Drill and Mine the Arctic as Ice Melts. Booman Tribune.
Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/profiting-climate-change-oilgas-companies-rush-drill-and-mine-arctic-ice-melts
The Canadian Encyclopedia. (2012). Arctic Sovereignty. Retrieved from
!
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/arctic-sovereignty
Ulfstein, G. & Henriksen, T. (2011, February 1). Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The
Barents Sea Treaty. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1937573
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (1982, December 10). Oceans and
Law of the Sea. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/
United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. (2013, January 23).
Chronological lists of ratifications of, accession and successions to the
Convention and the related Agreements as at January 23 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/
52
United Nations. (2012, August 21). Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
(CLCS). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm
U.S. Department of the U.S. Geological Survey. (2008, July 23). 90 Billion Barrels of Oil
and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic. Retrieved from
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980
Wherry, A. (2011, May 13). ‘A good working relationship’. Macleans. Retrieved from
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/13/a-good-working-relationship/
Williams, T. (2012, August 1). The Arctic: Organizations Involved in Circumpolar
Cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/
ResearchPublications/2008-15-e.htm#
Worldwatch Institute. (2013). Global Fossil Fuel Consumption Surges. Retrieved from
http://www.worldwatch.org/global-fossil-fuel-consumption-surges
Zaitsev, N. (2010, March 30). Many countries seeking Arctic access. Ria Novosti.
Retrieved from http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100330/158366754.html
53
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
54
Appendix C
Appendix D
55
Appendix E
56