Talk:Territorial claims in the Arctic

Miles/Kilometres/Nautical Miles
This page and most others dealing with the EEZ confuse miles and nautical miles, and give incorrect metric equivalents. 24.86.206.202 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian flag
"Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed". An interesting and related article. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is found here Arktika 2007--204.117.78.97 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The planting of Russian flag on the seabed merely marked that the Russian Federation has been there and did not in any way indicate that the Russian Federation was claiming the location. This statement clearly made by the Russian Foreign Minister.Moryak (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Claim vs. own?
Why does the author say the nations do not "own" the territory, but "claim" it? What is the difference? If one has exclusive rights over a territory (aside from navigation), doesn't one effectively "own" it? Needs clarification.--68.44.91.155
 * Because when someone says they own it, but someone disagrees, then it would be a claim. They can only claim something that no where in documentation officially states is theirs. There is still dispute over who actually owns what, thus countries are making claims that they own it, and most likely the UN will have to sort it out.--204.117.78.97 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The dominant "claims" made in the Arctic are those to "extended continental shelves." The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides for states to claim extended continental shelves beyond their Exclusive Economic Zones (200nm).  State have ten years after their ratification of the UNCLOS to make such claims to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS). Such claims must be accompanied by scientific data showing the geological foundation for such claims. If the UNCLCS validates the scientific basis and if more than one state makes duplicate or overlapping claims, the resolution is to be achieved by appropriate bilateral or multilateral diplomatic negotiations. Once negotiated, claims to extended continental shelves give the claimant state rights to the exploitation of resources on or beneath the seabed within the claimed area.Moryak (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Why extend territorial claims?
Can someone explain why any of these countries would want to extend their territorial claims? My first thought comes to oil, but shipping routes, or pride, come to mind... --24.86.206.202


 * Because of Global Warming the ice is receding, leaving more sea open, making it further accessible to drill for oil in the arctic. While this is more of a thing for Canada and Russia, the United States still claims that all the ice/water is international waters so anyone can pass a ship through it.--204.117.78.97 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To the original post: No country can extend its "territorial claim" to the arctic when all the territory in the North is claimed, the issue is maritime access. However you are right, under UNLCOS if a nation can prove that its continental shelf spans past the normal 200 mile limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone, it can have rights to the resource in that expanded area. Oil and gas are central, with the Arctic believed to contain 25% of the world's untapped oil, with most falling on the Russian side. And yes, pride is at stake. Canadian identity routinely includes references to the northern arctic, such as our national anthem that proclaims Canada to be the "True North, Strong and Free". Any perceived challenges to the Canadian north often invoke responses based upon nationalism, somewhat intriguing when most Canadians do not know the extent of CDN sovereignty over the Arctic.

To the second poster, you are confusing two issues. The delimitation of continental shelves has nothing to do with international shipping. These are two separate issues, and to some scholars Canada will not see and increase of shipping due to climate change (see Franklyn Griffith and "Shipping News," although I disagree, I do believe Griffiths argument has merit and should be included in any article that debates the ownership of the NWP). However, you are right that Climate Change serves to agitate unresolved sovereignty matters in the Arctic. Ultimately, no one knows for sure what is going to happen, and that uncertainty demands that nations like Canada, whose sovereignty over the water remains uncertain, must act to enforce its claim in order to prepare for actions that may challenge its claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To make sure that this discussion is clear for all readers, let's recap the facts:


 * Within 12 nautical miles of territorial baselines waters are considered sovereign territory (territorial waters) under the complete control (navigation and resource exploitation) of the littoral state.
 * Within a littoral state's Exclusive Economic Zone, lying within 200 nautical miles from the baseline but beyond the 12-mile territorial waters, the littoral state has sole rights to the exploitation of resources below, on, and above the seabed. It can also regulate scientific research but cannot infringe on the freedom of navigation of all states,
 * The special considerations arising from claims to extended continental shelves beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone are explained above.Moryak (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Sovereignty claims in the Arctic
I think that it would be appropriate to merge Sovereignty claims in the Arctic into this article. The latter article was created on August 7, and is only a stub, so merging should be of little work. It would just take some restructuring of the article in terms of the section headings. It would help expand this article as well, as it seems to focus mainly on the North pole and the immediate region around it. Any objections? -- Reaper  X  04:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with merging. -- A. B. (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction
Since there is little response and no opposition over the merge, I want to go ahead with the merge. This is going to require some reconstruction, and I will need some input from others on how to arrange to headings. The Sovereignty claims in the Arctic article is very short, but I want to spend some time to comb through the sources that exist there and expand it. Anyway, the main issues that will be introduced into the article are the Yukon–Alaska dispute (which also has a separate article I suggest we also merge here), Hans Island, and the Northwest Passage. I'm thinking these could have their own sections, and the current body of the article could have its own section. As for the title of the latter section, maybe "The North Pole"? Give me some feedback here. -- Reaper  X  05:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Hans Island and the Northwest Passage need their own articles, although we should include some discussion of the disputes here. I agree that Yukon–Alaska dispute should go here. -- A. B. (talk) —The preceding  signed but undated.


 * I agree that Hans Island and the NWP need their own articles as they exist outside of the disputes but there should be coverage here. The Yukon–Alaska dispute should be merged in here. I think I prefer the seperation of each dispute rather than the "initial claims" as is laid out here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my personal sandbox, I have an general example of what the article would look like there. The sections for Hans Island and the Passage will be kept short if there are no objections to their inclusion, and the Yukon–Alaska dispute will be the biggest addition. Leave any suggestions/comments/concerns. Cheers. -- Reaper  X  04:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good so far. No problem with mentioning Hans Island and the NWP since they are relevant (I agree they need separate articles as well, particularly the NWP).  A couple of points though: we are referencing everything in kilometres as primary units, where I believe nautical miles are more appropriate (not a complaint at you - we're already doing this).  The use of nautical miles in the laws of the sea is well established throughout the world, and I think it would be useful to be able to easily compare with these units rather than having to convert to and from kilometres.


 * The other thing: I don't know if you've been following it, but you may want to check out Talk:Northwest Passage, on the two sides of the dispute when writing that section. I've summarised it (successfully, I believe) at Canadian Internal Waters. Pfainuk talk 11:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the Hans Island and Beaufort Sea sections. Modify as you see fit. I will now put Sovereignty claims in the Arctic and Yukon-Alaska dispute up for deletion. -- Reaper  X  17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than have them deleted I changed them to redirects. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Cambridge. I have now re-written the Hans Island section, tinkered with image justifications and sizes, added the Northwest Passage section, and restructures the sectioning under the North Pole heading. Now for that latter work, do you think it's necessary to have the History heading, or would it be better to eliminate it, like so ? Also, what do you guys think of the order of the NWP, Hans, Beaufort and Pole sections? Is it fine as is? I have a feeling the North Pole section could do better at the bottom of the article, but that's just me. -- Reaper  X  06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New Arctic map puts focus on 'areas of uncertainty'
From CBC: 

-64.180.77.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sector Theory
The information about Sector Theory is wrong and misleading. First, Canada initially proclaimed Sector Theory in 1907 when Sector Pascal Poirier stated it before the Canadian Senate.

See Killaby, pg 34. block quote, bottom left corner

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-01-eng.pdf

Also Canada abandoned sector theory in 1986 and currenlty uses straight baselines around the archipelago. (this is the same problem I've discussed on the Canada wikipage for posting an incorrect map based on sector theory)

Although not very detailed, for simplicity see: Killaby, end of 35-36.

Canada does not claim ownership of the North Pole, and Minister McKay's comments reflect a general representation that most Canadians simply do not know the extent of our sovereignty in the North.

If you any help or sources, let me know and I'll be glad to assist.

Yikes, the section on "National Sectors" needs a serious rewrite as it is extremely outdated. Canada has not relied upon sector theory since adopting straight baselines around the archipelago in 1984-5. If fact, this whole page needs a thorough rewrite and is in bad need of a subject expert as it demonstrates a poor grasp of the issues and is factually incorrect or extremely vague in several places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also....
If the title of the Page is territorial claims in the Arctic it should not discuss MARITIME matters like the NWP and the Beaufort sea. Maybe another page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.94.14.128 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And, Canada does not claim the "Arctic Seas" as internal as stated in the first paragraph. Canada only considers the waters within the archipelago as internal as the page later states, these aren't seas, but passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

AND, Canada does not rely upon UNCLOS for the internalization for the NWP. Canada relies upon the International Court of Justice's ruling in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case of 1951 for straight baselines. How could Canada rely upon UNCLOS when it internalized the NWP officially in 1986 but did not ratify UNCLOS until 2003?

AND Canada argues ownership over the archipelago waters due to HISTORIC USAGE, not due to clauses in UNCLOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to lable this article 'controversial' or 'dispute'? You think it would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.9.55 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice
NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

North pole as a country
As I understand, the North pole could declare itself as a sovereign country. This as it houses several indiginous peoples, see http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/faq.html#8, http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Start_Your_Own_Country_(TV_series) This would eliminate the claiming of land by colonist nations.

81.243.185.133 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mixing up the Arctic with the North Pole. People live in the Arctic but nobody lives at the North Pole. The closest anyone lives to the NP is at Alert, Nunavut/CFS Alert, which has a permanent population of 5 (2006), and is 817 km (508 mi) away. There are other problems with your suggestion, however, this is not the place to discuss the idea of the NP becoming a separate country. something lame from CBW 17:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to make a point (pun intended) the geographic North Pole is a point on the map. It has no dimension and nobody lives there.  If you want to address people you have to specify a "polar region".Moryak (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Beaufort Sea
The Beaufort Sea section is kinda sloppy. For example: "No settlement has been reached to date, because the US has signed but has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"

In fact this dispute has little to do about LOS and is related to an 1825 Treaty between Russia and Britain over their borders. The treaty says the border should carry along the 141 meridian "as far as the frozen ocean". Canada argues the boundary should continue along the 141 meridian, whereas the US says it should be equal distance at the coastline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.4 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My previous edit to "Yukon Territory" and the subsequent re-edit back to "territory of Yukon" raised an interesting issue. I have just reviewed several OFFICIAL Canadian websites and they use "Yukon Territory" both in text and as labels on official maps.  If "territory of Yukon" is official why is it not used on Canada's own governmental websites?Moryak (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Major Issues with Page
The premise of this page is extremely confusing. As another poster commented, there are no territorial disputes or claims in the Arctic, they are all maritime. Look at the way this article is written, it talks about all these Arctic maritime issues under the interpretation of the Law of the Sea, then it has a sub-heading that lists all the territory in the Arctic, none of which is disputed. There's a serious connection/congruency issue here!

A major rewrite is needed here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree with above comments. When the issue of extended continental shelves is raised it deals with "territory".  In this case the land it deals with is the sea bottom.  I would define "maritime" as dealing with the water.  In this instance there also are conflicting maritime claims as well as territorial ones.

I see no reason for confusion nor do I see a reason for a major rewrite.Федоров (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I googled a few definitions:

1 - Territory: An area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state 2 - Land: The part of the Earth's surface not covered by water, as opposed to the sea or air 3 - Continental Shelf: The area of seabed around a large landmass where the sea is relatively shallow compared to the open ocean

The continental shelf is only "territory" by the fact that it is a part of the Earth's crust. There is a fundamental difference

In the case of Hans Island, the dispute exists because there is no agreed upon maritime baseline.

At the very least the page should be retitled something along the lines of "Disputed Sovereignty Claims in the Arctic," since the previous poster agreed that there are both maritime and supposed territorial issues. It's not simply "Territorial claims in the Arctic"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Offence or Offense
An interesting minor edit difference recently took place over a quote by Stephen Harper:

On September 25, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "President Putin assured me that he meant no offense..."

Source:



This poses a fascinating, yet very minor, difference between Canada and the United States. The quote comes from the New York based Council on Foreign Relations. For them to spell "defense" with an 's' is correct for them. If Harper spoke these words rather than published them in print, it is perfectly understandable why the quote uses the American "s" rather than the Canadian "c". If Harper had published his defence of Putin as a news release then it would be an editorial issue the New York based group would have to face. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

These few sources spell defence with a "c" even though the source of the report comes out of New York:


 * Google Search results for "defence" spelling in the Harper quote. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is a direct quote it should be cited exactly as written, even if it is a spelling error. Another option is to rewrite the section using the source without quoting directly, thus avoiding the misspelling. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Google Search results for "defense" spelling in the Harper quote.

The Toronto Star uses the "c" spelling. The rule of not changing the spelling in a quote makes sense to me but it doesn't seem to be a rule of journalism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of a journal advocating the keeping of original spelling:

The Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOSQUOTE weighs in on this issue with a simple rule:

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are sources with the Canadian spelling..."'President Putin assured me that he meant no offence' (from the book Arctic Front: Defending Canada in the Far North)""'President Putin assured me that he meant no offence' (from an article in the Toronto Star)"--Ckatz chat spy  08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes sense I suppose, to use Canadian spelling when quoting a Canadian Prime Minister if we have sources that use this. CMD (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Map request
A map showing the national sectors of EEZ (200nm) and maximum possible extend of continental shelfs (350nm). Anybody found such a free map? Japinderum (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808005847/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2007.pdf to http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070613215643/http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/download?id=35 to http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/download?id=35
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070730035434/http://www.carc.org/whatsnew/writings/amitchell.html to http://www.carc.org/whatsnew/writings/amitchell.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525085551/http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11861523 to http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11861523
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070828053101/http://topics.nytimes.com:80/top/news/science/series/thebigmelt/ to http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/series/thebigmelt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109190231/http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/arctic.pdf to http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/arctic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001232453/http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/aborig/arctic_reloc.htm to http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/aborig/arctic_reloc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930221420/http://www.geo.su.se/geology/marin-geovetenskap-projekt/lomrog-2007 to http://www.geo.su.se/geology/marin-geovetenskap-projekt/lomrog-2007
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/ConferenceInIlulissatGreenlandLandmarkPoliticalDeclarationOnTheFutureOfTheArctic.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020131061534/http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml to http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)