The law of the sea convention and the Northwest Passage

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 257-282

  Kraska, James ^a  

^a ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT; INTERNATIONAL LAW; LAW OF THE SEA; MARITIME BOUNDARY; MARITIME TRANSPORTATION; NAVIGATION; POLITICAL ORGANIZATION; SEA ICE; SECURITY; SOVEREIGNTY;

ARCTIC; CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 34547936543     PISSN: 09273522     EISSN: 15718085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157180807781361467     Document Type: Article

References (154)

1. Susan Joy Hassol, Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2005) at pp. 12-13, available at: http:amap.no/acia/.
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. See generally, John E. Walsh and Michael S. Timlin, Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Simulations by Global Climate Models, vol. 22 no. 1 Polar Research (June 2003), pp. 75-82.
6. The ice had floated on the sea, but been connected to land. Some scientists believe the separation of the ice from land is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years. Steve Lillebuen, Ancient Ice Shelf Snaps and Breaks Free From Canadian Arctic, Canoe News (CNEWS Network), 28 December, 2006, available at: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWSZScience/ 2006/12/28/3041440-cp.html.
7. Susan Joy Hassol, Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2005) at p. 5, available at: htrp://amap.no/acia/.
8. Thomas C. Pullen, What Price Canadian Sovereignty?, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings pp. 66-72, at p. 68 (Sep. 1987).
9. John Falkingham, Dr. Humfrey Melling and Katherine J. Wilson, Shipping in the Canadian Arctic: Possible Climate Change Scenarios, Weathering Change (Newsletter of the Northern Climate Exchange, 2002), at p. 4, available at: http://yukon.taiga.net/knowledge/initiatives/NCE_Newsletter_Fall2002.pdf.
10. Doug Struck, Dispute Over NW Passage Revived; U.S. Asserts Free Use by All Ships; Canada Claims Jurisdiction, The Washington Post, November 6, 2006, at p. A18.
11. K.J. Wilson et al, Shipping in the Canadian Arctic, available at: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/ detect/KW IGARSS04 NWP.pdf.
12. Id.
13. See, e.g., Politics of the Northwest Passage (Franklyn Griffiths, ed., Kingston: McGillQueen's University Press, 1989).
14. Theodore L. Eliot, Jr., United States Department of State, Information Memorandum for Mr. Kissinger-The White House, 12 March 1970. Foreign Relations 1969-1976, vol. E-1, Documents on Global Issues 1969-1972, available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/el/ 53180.htm.
15. Alanna Mitchell, The Northwest Passage Thawed, The Globe and Mail, 5 February 2000 at p. A9, available at: http://www.carc.org/whatsnew/writings/ amitchell.html.
16. Id.
17. A nautical mile equals one minute of latitude at the equator: 1,852 meters or 6,076.03 feet. In comparison, the statute mile on land is 5,280 feet.
18. Pierre Pettigrew, Canada's Leadership in the Circumpolar World, Notes for an Address by the Hon. Pierre Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the Northern Strategy Consultations Roundtable on Reinforcing Sovereignty, Security and Circumpolar Cooperation, 22 March 2005, available at: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc. ca/circumpolar/sec06_speeches_003-en.asp.
19. Canadian External Affairs Legal Bureau briefing of May 21, 1987, in C.S. Bourne, ed., 1987 Canadian Yearbook of International Law (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press) at p. 406
20. and Legal Bureau paper of March 29, 1988, in C.S. Bourne, ed., 1988 Canadian Yearbook of International Law (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press) at p. 314.
21. Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Goody, Canadian Arctic Sovereignty, Political and Social Affairs Division, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, PRB 05-61E, 26 January 2006 at p. 2, available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/ PRBpubs/prb0561-e.htm.
22. Dr. Rob Huebert, International Law, Geopolitics and Diplomacy in the Northwest Passage, The Journal of Ocean Technology, vol. 1 no. 1 (Summer 2006) pp. 16-18, at p. 16.
23. Rob Huebert, Renaissance in Canadian Arctic Security, Canadian Military Journal (Winter 2005-06), pp. 17-29, at pp. 22-25
24. and see generally, Rob Huebert, The Shipping News: Part II: How Canada's Arctic Sovereignty is on Thinning Ice, vol. 58 no. 3 International Journal (Summer 2003), pp. 295-308.
25. Rob Huebert, The Coming Arctic Maritime Sovereignty Crisis, Arctic Bulletin-World Wildlife Federation No. 2.04 (July 2004), pp. 22-24.
26. Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Goody, Canadian Arctic Sovereignty, Political and Social Affairs Division, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, PRB 05-61E, 26 January 2006 at p. 3, available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/ PRBpubs/prb0561-e.htm.
27. Maritime Claims Reference Manual (MCRM), DoD 2005.1-M (June 2005), at p. 96. The electronic version of the MCRM, which reprints most coastal state regulations, inclusive of tables of longitude and latitude, but exclusive of charts, is publicly available at: http:/www. dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ html/20051m.htm.
28. Order-in-Council 1967-2025, reprinted in MCRM at p. 96. Latitude and longitude coordinates for the Canadian straight baseline system for Newfoundland are provided in Table C1.T34 at pp. 100-103.
29. MCRM, p. 96.
30. Order-in-Council P.C. 1969-1109, reprinted in MCRM, p. 96. Canadian straight baseline systems for Nova Scotia are reprinted in Table C1.T33, for Vancouver Island at Table C1.T35, both on p. 104, and for Queen Charlotte Islands at Table C1.T36, p. 105 of the MRCM.
31. J. Ashley Roach and Robert W Smith, United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Kluwer Law International, 2d ed., 1996) at p. 339.
32. Thomas C. Pullen, What Price Canadian Sovereignty, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (September 1987) pp. 66-72, at p. 69.
33. Trevor Lloyd, Canada's Arctic in the Age of Ecology, Foreign Affairs (July, 1970), pp. 726740, at p. 740.
34. An Act Respecting the Oceans of Canada (Oceans Act), January, 1997, reprinted in Maritime Claims Reference Manual, DoD 2005.1-M (2005) at p. 96.
35. Articles 44 and 45, Law of the Sea Convention.
36. Order-in-Council P.C. 1985-2739 in January 1986, reprinted in MCRM at p. 96. Coordinates for the Canadian Arctic Islands are provided in Tables C1.T37, C1.T38 and C1.T39, reprinted in MRCM at pp. 106-113.
37. Reprinted in MCRM, at p. 105-106.
38. MCRM at p. 96.
39. Canada is not alone among coastal states in asserting more generous maritime coastal state claims that purport to control or impede international navigation and overflight. In fact, there are more than 100 illegal, excessive claims worldwide that declare limitations on vital navigational and overflight rights and freedoms.
40. Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historic Bays, U.N Doc A/CN.4Z143 (1962) at p. 56.
41. See, e.g., United States v. California, 381 U.S. 172 (1965).
42. Historic bays are recognized as those over which "a coastal nation has traditionally asserted and maintained dominion with the acquiescence of foreign nations." Id. at pp. 172-173.
43. See also, United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, at p. 23 (1969).
44. Donat Pharand, Canada's Arctic Waters in International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988) at p. 251.
45. United States v. Massachusetts, 475 U.S. 89, at p. 98 (1986).
46. Id. at p. 101.
47. Id. at pp. 98-99.
48. United States v. Alaska, 422 U.S. 184, at pp. 186-87 (1975).
49. Id.
50. Id., at pp. 190-91 (1975).
51. Id., at pp. 198-99.
52. The Court applied Art. 6 of the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas and noted that coastal states may exercise resource jurisdiction over areas of the high seas adjacent to their internal waters and territorial seas. See Art. 6, Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, 1 U.S.T. 138, 141, T.I.A.S. 5659 (1966).
53. United States v. Alaska, 422 U.S. 184, p. 200 (1975).
54. MCRM at p. 96 and p. 106.
55. Article 3, Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Arctic Cooperation, January 11, 1988 (TIAS 11565).
56. Id.
57. Articles 245 & 246, Law of the Sea Convention.
58. See, e.g., http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/.
59. J. Ashley Roach and Robert W. Smith, United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Kluwer Law International, 2d ed., 1996) at pp. 348-349.
60. Marianne Nash Leich, U.S. Practice: Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 83 American Journal of International Law 63-85, at pp. 63-64 (January 1989).
61. The United States submitted the first request under the Agreement on October 10, 1988 to request Canada's consent for the transit of a U.S. Coast Guard cutter, Polar Star. In conveying the request, the United States submitted, in a note, an invitation for a Canadian scientist and officer of the Canadian Coast Guard to be on board the Polar Star. The United States also indicated that the icebreaker would comply with all Canadian pollution control standards. Id. at pp. 63-64. See http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/ pstar/pstar.html.
62. Oran R. Young, Arctic Politics: Conflict and Cooperation in the Circumpolar North (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1992) at p. 163.
63. See, Bernard H. Oxman, The Regime of Warships in the Law of the Sea, vol. 24 no. 4 Virginia Journal of International Law (Summer 1984) pp. 809-862 at pp. 812-813, and http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/guard.htm.
64. Article 29, Law of the Sea Convention.
65. Article 40, Law of the Sea Convention.
66. R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing, 3rd ed., 1999) at p. 106.
67. Doug Struck, Dispute Over Northwest Passage Revived: U.S. Asserts Free Use by All Ships; Canada Claims Jurisdiction, Washington Post, 6 November 2006, p. A18.
68. Id.
69. Article 4, North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949, available at www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm..
70. President John F. Kennedy, as quoted in Joshua Kurlantzick, Oh. Canada. The Washington Monthly, June 2001, pp. 21-24, at p. 24.
71. Franklyn Griffiths, Pathetic Fallacy: That Canada's Arctic Sovereignty is on Thinning Ice, Canadian Foreign Policy vol. 11, No. 3 (Spring 2004) pp. 1-16, at p. 5.
72. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Securing Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic, 12 August 2006, available at: nttp://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1275.
73. Declaration made upon ratification (Canada), 7 November 2003, available at: http://www. un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations. htm#Canada.
74. Presidential Oceans Policy Statement, 10 March 1983.
75. Id.
76. See, e.g., John Norton Moore, The Regime of Straits and the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol. 74 no. 1 American Journal of International Law, pp. 77-121 (1980) at pp. 82-83.
77. See, for example, General Alexander Haig, Memorandum for the President of the United States-The White House, UN Law of the Sea Conference: Formulation of Straits Item on Agenda, Foreign Relations 1969-1976, vol. E-1, Documents on Global Issues 1969-1972, available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/ el/53299.htm.
78. Article 5, Law of the Sea Convention.
79. Article 8(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
80. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 5th ed., 1999) at p. 148.
81. Article 7(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
82. Article 10, Law of the Sea Convention. It is noteworthy that this closing rule does not apply in the case of an historic bay, such as the Hudson Bay. In such a case, however, the coastal state would still apply the rules for determining straight baselines contained in Article 7 of the Convention. See Article 10(6).
83. Article 10(2), Law of the Sea Convention.
84. Article 10(2), Law of the Sea Convention.
85. Article 10(3), Law of the Sea Convention.
86. Article 10(4), Law of the Sea Convention.
87. Article 7(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
88. Article 8(2), Law of the Sea Convention.
89. Article 8(2), Law of the Sea Convention and Article 5(2) of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, U.N.T.S. 7477, vol. 516 at 205-225.
90. Statement by CA. Stavropoulos, in Myron H. Nordquist, ed., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, vol. I (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985) at p. 1xv.
91. Articles 3 and 4, Law of the Sea Convention.
92. Article 21(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
93. Article 17, Law of the Sea Convention.
94. Article 21(2), Law of the Sea Convention.
95. Article 19(1) and 19(2)(a)-(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
96. Article 19(2)(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
97. Article 21(4), Law of the Sea Convention.
98. Article 24, Law of the Sea Convention.
99. Article 24(1 )(a), Law of the Sea Convention.
100. Article 46, Law of the Sea Convention.
101. Article 47(1) and (2), Law of the Sea Convention.
102. Article 47, Law of the Sea Convention.
103. Article 56(1)(a), Law of the Sea Convention.
104. Article 56(1)(b), Law of the Sea Convention.
105. Article 234, Law of the Sea Convention.
106. Myron H. Nordquist, Shabtai Rosenne and Alexander Yankov, eds., vol. IV United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, 1991) at § 234.5(g).
107. IMO Doc. PMPZCirc.105 dated Dec. 7, 1992, as cited in Roach and Smith, United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2d ed. 1996) at pp. 456-57.
108. State Department telegram 349386, Nov. 18, 1993;
109. American Embassy London telegram 20793, Nov. 18, 1993, as cited in id., at pp. 457-58.
110. Myron H. Nordquist, Shabtai Rosenne and Alexander Yankov, eds., vol. IV United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, 1991) at § 234.5(g).
111. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 5th ed., 1999) at p. 276.
112. Although attempts were made in the negotiation of the Law of the Sea Convention to include a precise definition of "strait," that term is left undefined in the Convention, which merely indicated in general terms those straits to which the section applies. Myron H. Nordquist, Satya N. Nandan and Shabtai Rosenne, eds., vol. II United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) at 37.4, at p. 319. Straits used for international navigation, however, contain both a geographic and functional component. Id, 1 37.7(b) at p. 320. At the second session of the Law of the Sea Conference in 1974, states rejected a Canadian version which read, "a natural passage between land formations....[which] [h]as traditionally been used for international navigation." Id., 37.3, at p. 318.
113. Article 37, Law of the Sea Convention.
114. Note that the Law of the Sea Convention does not affect additional rules for specific historic straits established under long-standing international conventions relating to such straits. See Article 35(c), Law of the Sea Convention.
115. Article 44, Law of the Sea Convention.
116. Article 34(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
117. Article 37, Law of the Sea Convention.
118. Article 36, Law of the Sea Convention.
119. Article 35(c), Law of the Sea Convention.
120. Article 36, Law of the Sea Convention.
121. Article 38(1) and 45(1)(b), Law of the Sea Convention.
122. See, e.g., Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr., International Straits and Navigational Freedoms, Remarks prepared for presentation at the 26th Law of the Sea Institute Annual Conference, Genoa, Italy, 22-26 June 1992, pp. 12-13 and p. 18, available at: http://www.state.gov/ documents/organization/65946.pdf. The classic example of the dead-end strait is Harbor Head Passage.
123. Article 38(2), Law of the Sea Convention.
124. Article 38(1), Law of the Sea Convention. The Strait of Messina, bordered by Sicily and Calabria, Italy, is the classic example of this exception.
125. Article 39(1)(a), Law of the Sea Convention.
126. Article 39(1)(b) and Article 2(4), United Nations Charter.
127. Article 39(1)(c), Law of the Sea Convention.
128. Article 39(2) (b), Law of the Sea Convention.
129. Article 39(3), Law of the Sea Convention.
130. Article 3, International Convention on Civil Aviation, available at: http://www.icao.int/icaonet/ arch/doc/7300/7300_9ed.pdf.
131. Article 41(1), Law of the Sea Convention.
132. Article 41(3), Law of the Sea Convention.
133. The flag State of a ship entitled to sovereign immunity which acts in a manner contrary to such laws bears "international responsibility for any loss or damage" which results to the States bordering straits. Article 42(5), Law of the Sea Convention.
134. Article 41(4), Law of the Sea Convention.
135. Article 41(7), Law of the Sea Convention.
136. Article 42(1)(b), Law of the Sea Convention.
137. Article 42(1)(c) and (d), Law of the Sea Convention.
138. Article 42(2) and (4), Law of the Sea Convention.
139. Article 42(2), Law of the Sea Convention.
140. Article 44, Law of the Sea Convention.
141. See, e.g., The White House, United States of America, National Strategy for Maritime Security (September 2005), which says, "preserving freedom of the seas is a top national priority." (italics in original) Id. at p. 7.
142. See also, id., at pp. 2, 8, available at: htrp://www. whitehouse.gov/homeland/maritime-security.html.
143. William D. Hartley, "When is a Strait International, When Territorial? No One is Quite Sure, and Therein Lies a Dispute," The Wall St. J., 30 November 1972, p. 40.
144. "Routeing Measures other than Traffic Separation Schemes," SN/Circ.198, 26 May 1998, available at: http://www.imo.org/includes/ blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D8752/198.PDF.
145. Kuala Lumpur Statement on Enhancement on Safety, Security and Environmental Protection in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, September 20, 2006, available at: http://www. imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/ data_id%3D15677/kualalumpurstatement.pdf.
146. See UN doc. A/61/584, Nov. 17, 2006 for a report of the Kuala Lumpur meeting.
147. "Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems," SN/Circ.201, 26 May 1988, http://www.imo.org/ includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D8753Z201.PDF. Warships and other government vessels normally comply with such rules, so long as they are consistent with the Law of the Sea Convention. Articles 29-32, Law of the Sea Convention.
148. Marine Electronic Highway in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, available at: http://webappsOl.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/partnerships/131. html.
149. Koji Sekimizu, The Marine Electronic Highway in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, Tropic Coasts (July 2001) at pp. 24-31, available at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blast DataOnly.asp/data_id%3D3668/ marineelectronichighwayarticle.pdf. The system utilizes the Electronic Navigation Chart-Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ENCECDIS). The original ECDIS testbed was conducted at the Woods Hole Oceanographie Institution nearly fifteen years ago.
150. Electronic Highway Project Takes Major Step Forward," IMO News, no. 2 (2002), at p. 35, available at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/ data_id%3D5716/issue2.pdf.
151. International Maritime Organization submission, Marine Electronic Highway in the Straits of Malacca, Partnerships/initiative to Strengthen Implementation of Agenda 21, available at: http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/sustainable_dev/ p2_managing_resources/marine_electronic_ imo_0207.pdf.
152. Agenda 21 is a blockbuster 40-chapter volume spanning 800 pages of goals and potential programs outlining sustainable development for the world. The full text of Agenda 21 is available on the Internet website of the UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/ english/agenda21toc.htm) (last visited Nov. 19, 2004).
153. Paul Wapner, World Summit on Sustainable Development: Toward a Post Jo-burg Environmentalism, vol. 3 no. 1 Global Environmental Politics, pp. 1-10, at pp. 1-2 (Feb. 2003).
154. Oran R. Young, The Arctic: Distinctive Region or Policy Periphery? In Arctic Politics: Conflict and Cooperation in the Circumpolar North ((Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1992) at pp. 231-234.