Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (52405)	10/23/2006 6:16:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

It cannot be argued (at least not by sensible people) that Canada's internal waters are not Canadian waters. It can be argued, by sensible and nonsensible people, that the waters outside of 12nm are not Canadian territorial waters. The issue is not firmly settled. Also the US has not signed or ratified the UNCLOS III treaty. -- "It was the transit of the Polar Sea through the Northwest Passage in 1985 that led to the Canadian Territorial Sea Geographical Co-ordinates (Area 7) Order of 1986[20] that enclosed the Passage within straight baselines. These baselines formally defined the outer limits of Canada’s historic internal waters. However, the use of straight baselines to encircle a coastal archipelago is “problematic.”[21] The Passage is a difficult piece of territory to categorize because it is neither just land nor just water and the legal jurisprudence for waters, let alone remote, ice-infested, arctic waters, is not clear.[22] The US does not dispute Canada’s sovereignty over the islands located in the Canadian sector of the Arctic[23] but insists the laws governing international waters do not align with Canada’s position. The Canadian government remains undeterred and consistently points to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway) of 1951[24] which serves as “direction regarding jurisdiction of states over waters adjacent to their coasts”.[25] This ruling was particularly important for Canada because: 1) it recognized the concept of historic title to coastal waters and 2) it accepted as the method of measurement of territorial seas which Canada prefers – the use of straight baselines. This method of calculation was reinforced seven years later at the first United Nations (UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea.[26] Rather than following the outline of a country’s land mass, as was the more traditional method, the straight baseline method allows a country with offshore islands and/or very jagged coastlines to calculate its territorial seas from straight lines drawn from a point on the coast to the islands or from island to island.[27] One then connects the dots literally and the water behind the lines is designated internal water while waters away from the line and toward open waters are considered territorial seas. Hence the term “straight baseline”. The “old” method of measurement (which is still used and favoured by the US) simply calculated the territorial seas from a baseline not exceeding twelve nautical miles from shore (at the low-water line) that traced the outline of the coast... ...The US Position There are two legal precedents that lend support to the US case that the Passage is an international strait. The first is based on geography and the second is based on use. If it can be demonstrated that the Passage represents a waterway, then the geographical condition is met. A waterway “must join one area of high seas to another.”[37] Since all seven channels of the passage link Davis Strait (a high sea) to the Beaufort Strait (a high sea), the first condition is met even if two of the channels are considered too shallow for commercial cargo vessels.[38] Furthermore, the US has consistently defended the right of innocent passage through international waters. Some examples include the US’s refusal to accept Libya’s claim that the Gulf of Sidra is entirely internal waters and, in 1986, sending the cruiser Yorkton and destroyer Caron deep into the Black Sea “on a route that deliberately passed through the Soviet Union’s internationally accepted twelve-mile-territorial waters” in order to prove the point that states should not limit the access of vessels to an international strait.[39] Even during the Cold War at a time when brinkmanship courted nuclear disaster, the US insistence on establishing the right of innocent passage was paramount. For the second condition, legal scholars turn to the ICJ Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v Albania)[40] in which a relatively small amount of international maritime traffic constituted sufficient usage for the Corfu Channel to be considered a strait.[41] While there has been relatively little traffic through the Passage due to ice conditions, unregulated foreign submarines could be considered amongst the numbers... ...Fundamentally, Canada and the US disagree on principles of law but as law is only a tool and not a means to itself, there is room for compromise and a way forward. Legal scholars have concluded that continued reliance on strictly legal argument is likely to be fruitless with regards to the Passage... westga.edu ...Second, and more important, is that there is international consensus only about the land area; the channels and straits - particularly the NORTHWEST PASSAGE - are not universally recognized as Canadian... thecanadianencyclopedia.com The Canadian attitude toward sovereignty over Arctic waters is tangled. Ottawa’s positions have not developed consistently with time, showing an ad hoc policy on Arctic archipelagic waters motivated largely by reaction to U.S. actions and to public perceptions.48 As a maritime nation and one concerned about international precedent, the United States has taken the position that the waters north of the Canadian landmass are “international straits” through which freedom of navigation prevails.49 The Canadian position has developed over the years in an uneven path, with Canada finally claiming the waters to be internal in 1985 by declaring straight baselines around the archipelago.50 In 1988 the Arctic Cooperation Agreement between Canada and the United States declared that navigation by U.S. icebreakers within those waters claimed to be internal by Canada would be undertaken with Canadian consent; the agreement did not address the status of the waters.51 The agreement temporarily stabilized the situation, but it only addressed icebreakers under the assumption that any commercial vessel would require the assistance of at least one icebreaker.52 As climate conditions change, this assumption may be invalid, and the situation may become uncertain again. ndu.edu