4 ms·

There are only a small number of countries that consider the entire Arctic to be national/internal waters. Most of the world, including the US (http://www.parl.

There are only a small number of countries that consider the entire Arctic to be national/internal waters. Most of the world, including the US (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0561-e.htm#BRelations http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb05...) and all of the EU other than Denmark and Norway, consider the Arctic to be international waters. In this particular case the coal was being shipped from Canada, which benefits Canada, who happens to claim to own much of the Arctic. Presumably ships carrying Canadian cargo would be cleared to use this route, and legally be required to seek such clearance in order to be cleared to leave Canadian port. Other ships which do not leave from, refuel at, or stop on Canadian land, would presumably be asked to seek permission to pass through what most of the world considers international waters. There are only certain countries that would even want to, but it would obviously be useful for China, Japan and Korea to use this route for shipments to Europe. Eventually someone will take the route without permission, and then Canada will need to figure out to what extent they can assert their claimed ownership of the Arctic. Should Canada succeed in their claims internationally, it may be a good opportunity for other countries to make use of the new doctrine as well. For example Somalia has long claimed that ships going through the Suez canal are passing through their territory, and other nations claim that these are international waters not subject to Somalian boarding for inspection and collection of fees (which other countries call piracy). It will be interesting to see if Canada prevails in its Arctic claims, while maintaining Somalia has no similar claims to control of what they consider national waters, which don't extend anywhere nearly as far from land as Canada is claiming here.

AYBABTME 13y ago
The difference with Somalia is that the Northwest passage is bounded up, down, left, right, by Canada's territory and not only passing near it. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Northwest_passage.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Northwes... The northern islands have been part of the territory since 1880. Claiming the water in between them aren't part of Canada's territory seems odds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Canad... Note: I'm no specialist in this domain and I've only done a cursory research to form this argument.
VladRussian2 13y ago
under international law any claim not backed up by a strong enough force is void. At least it has been the case so far :) >Somalian boarding for inspection and collection of fees (which other countries call piracy) for it to not constitute piracy it should be performed using guided missile destroyer, not an inflatable rubber boat.
- vacri 13y ago
  For it to not constitute piracy, it should happen within 12 miles of their shoreline, their territorial waters. Somali pirates have been attacking ships as far away as Oman and Tanzania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Somalian_Piracy_Threat_Map_2010.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Somalian_Piracy_Threat_Map...
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >For it to not constitute piracy, it should happen within 12 miles of their shoreline, their territorial waters. i somehow don't see how actions of Somali pirates wouldn't be considered as such even if it happened inside the 12 miles zone. Piracy inside or outside of territorial waters is still a piracy. Compare that to a hypothetical situation - if Somali could gather a presentable navy and start harassing ships outside of the 12 miles zone and a presentable looking spoke-person would communicate some theory why it is a right of Somali people - then we'd have just a legitimate territorial dispute :)
iwwr 13y ago
"For example Somalia has long claimed that ships going through the Suez canal are passing through their territory" Don't you mean the Bab el Mandeb strait?
chollida1 13y ago
> Should Canada succeed in their claims internationally, it may be a good opportunity for other countries to make use of the new doctrine as well. To be fair this statement is pretty inflammatory. There is no new doctrine. Canada has always claimed they owned these island and no other country has ever disagreed with this(1), until the past 20 years or so when oil was found under the water and the north west passage started to open up. And to be clear, Canada has claimed ownership, of these islands since 1880, so this isn't exactly a fresh land grab:) As can be seen from this diagram, any ship going through here sails directly through Canadian waters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwest_passage.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwest_passage.jpg (1) with the exception of Denmark and hood island. However here both countries disagree about which side of their territorial borders a small island lies on.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Again: it's not about the islands, it's about the water between them. Let's stipulate that Canada owns every island in the hemisphere. Now what? If enough ice melts that there's a passage between them which doesn't come within 12 nautical miles of an island's coast, then there's a passage that isn't in Canada's territorial waters, and Canada can't, under current international law, forbid ships using the passage.
  - notaddicted 13y ago
    For the passage in the wikipedia diagram, both of the two paths after the first bifurcation (moving westward) pass through channels less than 24 nautical miles wide. Canada would need to build observation towers but it could be defended with "cannons" e.g. the M777.
vacri 13y ago
Somalia has long claimed that ships going through the Suez canal are passing through their territory The Suez Canal is half a continent away, and completely bounded by Egypt. The tight point of the Bab el Mendeb, where it narrows to about 20 miles, is between Yemen and Djibouti anyway. Where Somalia is, the Gulf of Aden widens out to around 150 miles, of which only 12 miles are recognised as territorial waters, same as everywhere else. I am not a shipping expert though, this is not shipping advice. There's also the point that shipping has been using the strait for as far back as we have records. The same can't be said of the Northwest Passage.
obstacle1 13y ago
>Somalia has long claimed that ships going through the Suez canal are passing through their territory Huh? How could Somalia possibly claim this? Seven other countries' coastlines stand between the Suez and Somalia. There is nearly a 3000km distance between the Suez and Somalia's closest border.

AYBABTME 13y ago

The difference with Somalia is that the Northwest passage is bounded up, down, left, right, by Canada's territory and not only passing near it. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Northwest_passage.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Northwes... The northern islands have been part of the territory since 1880. Claiming the water in between them aren't part of Canada's territory seems odds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Canad... Note: I'm no specialist in this domain and I've only done a cursory research to form this argument.

VladRussian2 13y ago

under international law any claim not backed up by a strong enough force is void. At least it has been the case so far :) >Somalian boarding for inspection and collection of fees (which other countries call piracy) for it to not constitute piracy it should be performed using guided missile destroyer, not an inflatable rubber boat.

vacri 13y ago
For it to not constitute piracy, it should happen within 12 miles of their shoreline, their territorial waters. Somali pirates have been attacking ships as far away as Oman and Tanzania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Somalian_Piracy_Threat_Map_2010.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Somalian_Piracy_Threat_Map...
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >For it to not constitute piracy, it should happen within 12 miles of their shoreline, their territorial waters. i somehow don't see how actions of Somali pirates wouldn't be considered as such even if it happened inside the 12 miles zone. Piracy inside or outside of territorial waters is still a piracy. Compare that to a hypothetical situation - if Somali could gather a presentable navy and start harassing ships outside of the 12 miles zone and a presentable looking spoke-person would communicate some theory why it is a right of Somali people - then we'd have just a legitimate territorial dispute :)

iwwr 13y ago

"For example Somalia has long claimed that ships going through the Suez canal are passing through their territory" Don't you mean the Bab el Mandeb strait?

chollida1 13y ago

> Should Canada succeed in their claims internationally, it may be a good opportunity for other countries to make use of the new doctrine as well. To be fair this statement is pretty inflammatory. There is no new doctrine. Canada has always claimed they owned these island and no other country has ever disagreed with this(1), until the past 20 years or so when oil was found under the water and the north west passage started to open up. And to be clear, Canada has claimed ownership, of these islands since 1880, so this isn't exactly a fresh land grab:) As can be seen from this diagram, any ship going through here sails directly through Canadian waters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwest_passage.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northwest_passage.jpg (1) with the exception of Denmark and hood island. However here both countries disagree about which side of their territorial borders a small island lies on.

ubernostrum 13y ago
Again: it's not about the islands, it's about the water between them. Let's stipulate that Canada owns every island in the hemisphere. Now what? If enough ice melts that there's a passage between them which doesn't come within 12 nautical miles of an island's coast, then there's a passage that isn't in Canada's territorial waters, and Canada can't, under current international law, forbid ships using the passage.
- notaddicted 13y ago
  For the passage in the wikipedia diagram, both of the two paths after the first bifurcation (moving westward) pass through channels less than 24 nautical miles wide. Canada would need to build observation towers but it could be defended with "cannons" e.g. the M777.

vacri 13y ago

Somalia has long claimed that ships going through the Suez canal are passing through their territory The Suez Canal is half a continent away, and completely bounded by Egypt. The tight point of the Bab el Mendeb, where it narrows to about 20 miles, is between Yemen and Djibouti anyway. Where Somalia is, the Gulf of Aden widens out to around 150 miles, of which only 12 miles are recognised as territorial waters, same as everywhere else. I am not a shipping expert though, this is not shipping advice. There's also the point that shipping has been using the strait for as far back as we have records. The same can't be said of the Northwest Passage.

obstacle1 13y ago

>Somalia has long claimed that ships going through the Suez canal are passing through their territory Huh? How could Somalia possibly claim this? Seven other countries' coastlines stand between the Suez and Somalia. There is nearly a 3000km distance between the Suez and Somalia's closest border.