Documents on Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security (DCASS (original) (raw)
Related papers
Arctic Sovereignty Initiatives in the Canadian North: A Historical Review, 1700–1980
Each generation of Canadians has “discovered” the Arctic and, in a way, redefined itself in relation to it. Traditionally this re-discovery is accompanied by an expression of concern over our sovereignty claim to the islands and waters of the North. Various stimuli have been responsible for this recurring pattern, including: the exploratory expeditions of Franklin, Stefansson, Bernier and others; the transfer of jurisdiction over the Arctic Islands to Canada from Britain in 1880; challenges to our sovereignty over the Arctic islands from Norway, the United States, and Denmark in the 1920s; the construction of the Distant Early Warning in the 1950s; and, in our own generation, the voyage of the S.S. Manhattan in 1969. A wide range of writers and scholars has maintained an active discourse on questions related to these issues, developing an interdisciplinary field that is often called “Arctic sovereignty.” As a result, the sovereignty concept has acquired several layers of meaning, some of which will be explored in this book. Public discussion in Canada has largely, and legitimately, focused on policy questions that flow from sovereignty, from Canada’s right to exercise authority over that of any other state over vast areas of Arctic lands and waters. Thus I will address the central questions raised in the past such as: what is the status of Arctic lands and waters? Which states have defined Ottawa’s jurisdiction over the area in the past? How has Canada dealt with these challenges in the past? How well equipped is Canada to deal with such challenges in the future? What does circumpolarity imply for Canadian sovereignty? These questions usually encompass matters of international law, diplomacy, technological developments, defense, and economics. In addition I would suggest that Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic cannot be understood in isolation from the concerns of aboriginal people and historical developments. Consequently this paper will examine all of the above areas in relation to Arctic sovereignty, which will provide a framework for understanding the significance of the North to the Canadian identity and the ramifications of this identity for future developments in the North.
Gordon W. Smith, PhD, dedicated much of his life to researching Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. His 1952 dissertation from Columbia University on “The Historical and Legal Background of Canada’s Arctic Claims” remains a foundational work on the topic, as does his 1966 chapter “Sovereignty in the North: The Canadian Aspect of an International Problem,” in R. St. J. Macdonald’s The Arctic Frontier. This work is the first volume in a project to edit and publish Smith’s unpublished opus – a manuscript on “A Historical and Legal Study of Sovereignty in the Canadian North and Related Law of the Sea Problems.” Written over three decades, this work may well be the most comprehensive study on the nature and importance of the Canadian North in existence. Volume 1: Terrestrial Sovereignty provides the most comprehensive documentation yet available on the post-Confederation history of Canadian sovereignty in the north. As Arctic sovereignty and security issues return to the forefront of public debate, this invaluable resource provides the foundation upon which we may expand our understanding of Canada’s claims from the original transfers of the northern territories in 1870 and 1880 through to the late twentieth century.
Constructing Arctic sovereignty: rules, policy and governance 1494-2013
2014
Constructing Arctic Sovereignty: Rules, Policy and Governance 1494-2013 is a meta-narrative of the development of state sovereignty in the Arctic. It investigates the evolution of the rules of the international system over the longue durée, in so far as they frame Arctic sovereignty. It examines in particular the increasing importance of the legal dimension of territory and the transitions that have occurred with the introduction of new rules used by states to establish sovereignty. The thesis analyses the policy of the United States, Canada and Russia as they pursue their national interests in the region, with reference to (and at times in contravention of) international rules and codes, and it situates governance within the framework of the international system as a mechanism for states to pursue their interests in the Arctic beyond their sovereign borders. This thesis makes an original contribution to knowledge through its distinctive methodology and theoretical approach, as well as through its analysis of primary materials. Using the pillars of a constructivist research framework-including rules and interests over the longue durée-to develop a meta-narrative of Arctic sovereignty, it situates contemporary Arctic foreign policy and governance within the evolving framework of the international system, identifying imperialism as a common thread in the relationship between the Arctic states and Arctic territory. It concludes that the expansion of sovereignty over this new territory represents the continuation of imperialism within the international system by states, perpetuating an asymmetric relationship that allows states to absorb this territory for the purposes of resource exploitation in the pursuit of national interests, with international cooperation maintaining the primacy of the Arctic states within the region.
Is Canada Entitled to the Arctic
This article is interested in the general question of what justifies territorial rights over unoccupied places, including places that are not occupied but are situated within the territorial borders of a state. This question arises because one of the most common defenses of rights over territory makes use of the idea of occupancy and has difficulty explaining such rights in places that are not occupied. It explores this question through an examination of the claims and arguments in the Canadian Arctic, which provides an historically specific test case for the merits and plausibility of the various arguments appealed to. It argues that territorial rights in unoccupied places, including the Canadian Arctic, are justified on different grounds than in occupied parts of the territory, and that the justification also affects the kinds of rights-particularly over resources-that such states can claim.