Advertisement

The Legal Status of the Northwest Passage: Canada’s Jurisdiction or International Law in Light of Recent Developments in Arctic Shipping Regulation?

  • Saied Satei
Chapter
Part of the WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs book series (WMUSTUD, volume 7)

Abstract

The recent adoption of the Polar Code relates to the Northwest Passage (the Passage) that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The Passage has not, however, been completely navigable due to the existence of Arctic sea ice. Arctic waters are however, increasingly becoming more accessible since sea ice, largely due to the effect of climate change, is thawing. This holds the potential of greater maritime activities in the Arctic waters including the Passage. It is consequently essential to ensure maritime safety and environmental protection. The question is, who has jurisdictional authority to govern such activities within the Passage? Canada claims that it is part of its historic internal waters and therefore, Canadian legislation is applicable. It also dismisses the notion that it is an international strait and/or may be used for innocent passage. There are two criteria for the qualification of a strait as international: Geographical situation connecting two parts of the high seas; and it is used for the purposes of international navigation. Moreover, littoral states do not have a right to prohibit innocent passage in time of peace. This is in conjunction with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary international law. Canada has the right to exercise jurisdiction over issues relating to marine pollution in the Passage waters. It simultaneously has the obligation to apply international rules such as the Polar Code.

Keywords

The Northwest Passage governance The Polar Code UNCLOS International navigation Maritime safety Environmental protection 

References

Journal Article

  1. Byers, M., & Lalonde, S. (2009). Who controls the Northwest Passage. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 1156–1159.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, M. (2007). Arctic: A tough nut to crack. Petroleum Economist, 74, 32.Google Scholar
  3. Gross, A. (1966). Maritime boundaries of the states. Michigan Law Review, 64, 650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lindsay, T. (2012). (Un) Frozen frontiers: A multilateral dispute settlement treaty for resolving boundary disputes in the Arctic. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence, 10, 11.Google Scholar
  5. Lolande, S. (2004). Increased traffic through Canadian waters. Revue Ju-ridiue Themis, 38, 74.Google Scholar
  6. Molde, J. (1982). The status of ice in international law. Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret, 51, 165.Google Scholar
  7. Paulson, J. (2009). Melting ice causing the Arctic to boil over: An analysis of possible solutions to a heated problem. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 19, 353.Google Scholar
  8. Pelletier, S., & Lasserre, F. (2012). Arctic shipping: Future polar express sea-ways: Shipowners’ opinion. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 43, 558.Google Scholar
  9. Pharand, D. (2007). The Arctic waters and the Northwest Passage: A final revisit. Ocean Development & International Law, 38, 5 and 29–30.Google Scholar
  10. Reid, R. (1974). Canadian claim to sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic. Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 12, 124.Google Scholar
  11. Rostan, M. (2009). The Northwest Passage’s emergence as an international highways. Southern Journal of International Law, 15, 452–454.Google Scholar
  12. Rothwell, D. (1993). The Canadian-U.S. Northwest Passage dispute: A reassessment. Cornell International Law Journal, 26, 352.Google Scholar
  13. Sakhuja, V. (2014). The Polar Code and Arctic navigation. Strategic Analysis, 38, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Book

  1. Brubaker, R. (2005). The Russian Arctic straits. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  2. Dosman, E. (1975). The national interest: The politics of northern development, 1968–75. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
  3. Martin, A. (2010). International straits: Concept, classification and rules of passage. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Nowlan, L. (2001). Arctic legal regime for environmental protection. Siegburg: IUCN.Google Scholar
  5. Roach, A., & Smith, R. (1994). Excessive maritime claims. Newport: Naval War College.Google Scholar
  6. Rothwell, D. (1996). The polar regions and the development of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Symmons, C. (2008). Historic waters in the law of the sea: A modern re-appraisal. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  8. Walker, G. (2012). Definitions for the law of the sea: Terms not defined by the 1982 Convention. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar

Online Document

  1. Arctic Council. (2009). Arctic marine shipping assessment. Arctic Council. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/documents/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf
  2. IMO. (2010). Guidelines for ships operating in polar waters. IMO. Retrieved July 25, 2015, from http://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Attachments/Pages%20from%20E190E.pdf
  3. IMO. (2015). Shipping in polar waters: Development of an international code of safety for ships operating in polar waters (the Polar Code). Retrieved July 21, 2015, from http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/polar/Pages/default.aspx
  4. McGrath, M. (2012). Gas tanker Ob River attempts first winter Arctic crossing. BBC News. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20454757
  5. Yenikeyeff, S., & Krysiek, T. (2007). The battle for the next energy frontier: The Russian polar expedition and the future of Arctic hydrocarbons. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Retrieved July 18, 2015, from http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Aug2007-TheBattleforthenextenergyfrontier-ShamilYenikeyeff-andTimothyFentonKrysiek.pdf
  6. Young, S., Minteer, K., Long, J., Hubach, C., & Carlton, J. (2009). The scramble for the Arctic: The United Nations convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS) and extending national seabed claims. Bepress Journal. http://works.bepress.com/jondcarlson/28/

Case Law

  1. UK v. Albania (the Corfu Channel case). International Court of Justice. 1949 Apr 09.Google Scholar
  2. UK v. Norway (the Fisheries case). International Court of Justice. 1951 Dec 18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert Gordon UniversityAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations