Review of the literature

The new climate changes are bringing deep transformations in the Canadian Arctic. The thinning ice in the northern area leads many scholars and scientists to take a closer look to the Northwest Passage, a very narrow strait that could become a shipping route with the meltdown of the ice caps. Being on Canada’s territory, this passage could bring commercial and economical opportunities to the country. However, some states are revoking the fact that the Northwest Passage is under Canada’s jurisdiction and would meet major interests in the fact of having this strategic road named international. What will keep our attention here is the literature published concerning the Canadian and American viewpoints when it comes to the Northwest Passage. The goal is to find out why Canada’s sovereignty is being questioned when the Northwest Passage is recognized by both parties as Canadian territory.
Quite a few scholarly articles and head news have been written up to now about the disagreement between Canada and the United States. By taking an overall look to what has been produced on that matter, one can observe that there has been a recrudescence of the publications concerning the issue since 2002. The fact that the melt has accelerated since then according to John Falkingham as we can find in Rebecca Dube’s As Ice Melts, Debate over the Northwest Passage Heats (2006), is certainly a cause of the comeback of the debate. Moreover, in 2002, Rob Huebert published Northern Interests and Canadian Foreign Policy a determinant article about Canada’s attempt to keep sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Over 60% of my works cited refer to Huebert’s research which demonstrates that his work is not to be neglected. In addition to the articles found, important laws are included in the present review of the literature and will be used to enhance both actors’ opinions. These legislation texts are namely the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention () and The Northern Dimension of Canada’s Foreign Policy (2000).
In my fifteen sources, it has been possible to highlights the major Canadian claims as to its sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. In Rob Huebert’s Northern Interests and Canadian Foreign Policy (2002), in Ron Mcnab’s Canada’s Arctic Waterways: Future Shipping Crossroads? (2004) as well as in Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Gody’s Canadian Arctic Sovereignty (2006), the paramount claim defended by Canada is that the Northwest Passage is “historical internal waters” and therefore, it is under its jurisdiction and control. Moreover, Andrea Charron writes in The Northwest Passage in Context (2006) that Canada denies that the right of navigation exists for foreigners on that territory. In relation to that statement, the first “illegal” voyage of the Manhattan became a watershed for the declaration of Canada’s sovereignty over the northern route as Franklyn Griffiths explains in his article Pathetic Fallacy: That Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty is on Thinning Ice (2004). Canadian vital interests of having jurisdiction on the Arctic region are the protection of the environment as well as the northern communities, keeping its identity and nonetheless promoting bilateral relations with the United States. (Charron, 2006)
When it comes to the United States’ opinion on Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, once again the scholars converge to the same main claim: the United Sates consider the Northwest Passage as an international strait using to its advantage the UN Law of the Sea Convention. In Charron’s (2006) article, it is clearly said that the United States do not want to concede to Canada sovereignty over the Northwest Passage because of the various economical and commercial interests it defends such as saving time and money by this shorter route and being close to any mineral exploitation. In Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Goody’s Canadian Arctic Sovereignty (2006), we can find a quotation from a U.S foreign relation document which demonstrates well the whole point of my thesis statement: “We cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada […]. Such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.”
Now that the most important points of each side’s claims are given, proving that there is a real debate ongoing between Canada and the United States, there is still some divergence in the scholars’ sayings. For example, the great majority of them bring that the melting of the ice is a verified fact. However, they do not prevail the same information as to the speed it is melting. In Rebecca Dube’s article (2006), it is written that there could be an extended summertime shipping season by the end of the century but we can find it Rob Huebert’s (2002) work that the shipping season would be extended in the same manner as said in Dube’s research, within 15 to 40 years. Adding to that the substantial difference between the numbers given by some scholars, when it comes to the number of miles saved by someone who travels by the Northwest Passage as opposed to one who would go trough the Panama Canal. In Mike Blanchfield’s editorial Canada’s Artic Sovereignty Claim ‘Tenuous’, Pentagon Adviser Argues (2007), the Northwest Passage route would be 9 000 kilometres shorter, Dube (2006) claims it would be 4 600 miles shorter whereas Charron (2004) writes it is 7 000 kilometres shorter. In addition to that Huebert provides good information on what is still unknown by the scientists. Among these uncertainties comes the fact that there is a debate when it comes to the precise cause of the diminished ice cover and whether it is or not part of a long or short term metamorphosis. He adds that, according to him, “the impact of a warmer climate is not fully understood”. Finally, since the Northwest Passage is not yet a shipping route, some scholars, like Ron Macnab (2004), doubt the capacity of Canada to provide services and facilities as well as security in the area.
The emergence of this debate on the Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage shows that research on the matter is only beginning. However, there are still voluminous reports on the viewpoints and the claims from both Canada and the United States in that battle. The sources used for this review are diversified and recent enough to lead to a original research paper that would examine and analyze new angles of the issue such as the laws used and the measurements process.

Outline

I. The scientifically proved meltdown of the Northwest Passage
A. Review of the literature on what is known and unknown
1. The causes of the melting
2. When will the Passage be open for shipping?
3. How much shorter will it be than the Panama Canal?
B. What is at stake?
1. Commercial possibilities
2. The actual jurisdiction

II. The debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage
A. Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage
1. Increasing interest of the government for this region
2. Internal waters
3. Environmental and traditional security
4. Strategic possibilities
B. The United States call the Northwest Passage an international strait
1. What it intends to be international?
2. American interests regarding the Northwest Passage
3. Why the United States do not accept Canada’s claim?
4. The diplomatic incidents caused by the United States