Canada and the United States Ownership of the Arctic Region

The Arctic region is a neglected area for quite some time. However with the recent discovery of natural and mineral resources in the Arctic, countries like the United States, Russia and other Europe have been presenting their keen curiosity about the cold territory. In this article Arctic Meltdown, written by Scott Borgerson, the writer discusses the economical and the security consequences caused by the Global Warming. Global warming has contributed to the melting of the icecaps this led to the finding of forty-four billion barrels of gas liquids in the frozen area of the Arctic Circle. The discovery has escalated the fight between Russia, United States, Canada and other Europe over which state legally possess these resources creating the most crucial "territorial dispute of the century. "This article Arctic Meltdown, talks about the political issues caused in the Arctic creating hindrance to the negotiation made between countries claiming its possession of the resources. Even though the melting of the icecaps presents promising energy markets and the revolution of global shipping, serious problems like the likelihood of war above the territory in the Arctic region are being overlooked by the U. S. State Department and by the U. S. National Security Council. Since there are no legal structures available in giving an answer to the great levels of ice-melting also to an organized development of the Arctic region, the territory is because of this at risk of being exploited by several money and power hungry countries. This proves that if a robust country such as the United States does not step up and address the challenges faces in the Arctic, the problems evident will continue steadily to worsen developing a possibility of your battle between nations in desire to control the abundant amount of resources available. This essay will employ the conceptual types of global politics such as realism and complex interdependence in understanding different dimensions evident to the current situation in the Arctic. Hence will examine about how the Canadian and U. S. governments should approach the issue.

Overview of the situation in the Arctic region

The melting of the icecap has sparked pre-existing issues relating to the land claims created by Russia, U. S and other countries in Europe, challenging Canada's Arctic sovereignty as a result of increase interest of outside states of the resource available in your community. Ice caps in the Arctic are melting therefore more natural resources and minerals are being found. This has allowed a creation of shorter shipping routes that may potentially save billions of dollars every year for shipping companies. According to a estimate conducted by the U. S. geological survey and Statoil-Hydro of Norway, the Arctic carries about one quarter of the world's remaining and "undiscovered" oil and gas sediments. Countries battle within the territory because it can economically prosper a country therefore increasing the state's political influence and authority. This desire to realize power is embedded atlanta divorce attorneys state, which is why tension is ignited among countries longing to achieve rights of the Arctic.

U. S and Canada relations in the Arctic

Canada and the United States' relationship show some frustration in pursuing its own affinity for the Arctic. Both states display enthusiasm on the extraction of the resources and expansion of a strategic military region in the Arctic. Such keenness has raised a major number of issues such as the control over marine transportation in the Northwest Passage and the domineering of pollution problems. The predicament roots back 1969 and 1970, when the utilization of the voyages S. S Manhattan, a U. S. tanker and C. G. S. Polar Sea, a U. S. icebreaker motivated the issue of Canada's sovereign control over its Arctic region that stimulated a debate nationally. The dispute over Canadian sovereignty of the Arctic waters led to the enactment of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act which allows Canada to regulate over pollution in the 100 mile zone. In 1970, the unhappy USA responds back stating that accepting the act would "jeopardize the freedom of navigation needed for USA activities worldwide. "However in 1988, Canada and the United States signed an agreement on "Arctic Co-operation, " that allowed the U. S. icebreakers to voyage through the Arctic with some limitations and consent extracted from the Canadian government.

The claim of territory in the Arctic by several countries has challenged Canada's sovereignty within the Arctic. In attempt to overcome the challenges, Canada dedicated fifty-one million dollars to help classify and map the border of its continental shelf in the Arctic to coincide upon the jurisdictions organized in the US Convention on the Law of Sea also called UNCLOS. The UNCLOS is an administration of law and command that regulates the world's oceans and seas by setting up rules governing uses of all oceans and its own resources. Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003; the United States on the other hand has not approved the UNCLOS even although U. S. Senate Foreign Relations voted in 2004 advocating the ratification.

To tackle the current crisis in the Arctic territory, it is essential for USA to create an agreement with Canada to assist in preventing the escalation of conflicts about the sea-water lines and its own resources. Borgenson states in the article the "Arctic Meltdown, " that the "decisions created by the Arctic powers in the coming years will therefore profoundly condition the continuing future of the region for decades. " He believes that minus the U. S. taking part in the decision making to find solutions for the claims created by the Arctic powers. Borgenson indicates that with no U. S's leadership in this matter, the "region could erupt within an armed mad dash because of its resources. "

Realist theory methods to the conflict

Political realists in international politics make an effort to obtain power by using violence. They think that throughout history nations have either vigorously prepared for violence or either convalescing from it due to war. The conceptual theory realism relies heavily on three assumptions; 1) states are leading actors and act as rational divisions; 2) the utilization of force is effective to obtain power as proven throughout days gone by [historic wars]; 3) and guess that hierarchy in politics "high politics" dictates over "low politics" of economic and public dealings. In addition, realists assume that the international system is in a continuous state of anarchy; which explains why protecting nations own interest is greatly valued because of the mistrust of agreement between other states or actors. Most importantly, the primary objective of realism is to acquire power mostly through the use of military and monetary means. To analyse the problem in the Arctic, it is vital to connect a few of the characteristic of realism with the issue.

In some parts, characteristics of realism can be closely related to the relationship of USA and Canada with the issue revolving surrounding the Arctic. Canada claims sovereignty within the Arctic because of geographical and historical reasons to it. The United States searches to discover a reason of somehow that the country has rights in the Arctic and its own resources. Both states display their own interests in the region suggests characteristics of realism.

Complex Interdependence methods to the conflict

Complex interdependence is a theory found in international politics that focus on the thought of economic independence. The theory includes three central characteristics. Firstly, the employment of "multiple channels" is strongly significant for the actual fact so it joins societies in transnational, interstate and trans-governmental affairs. Secondly, in complex interdependence theory, hierarchy is absent in which military security is least considered therefore will not dictate the agenda. The "lack of hierarchy" allows for the concentration of other issues pertaining to domestic policy. Lastly, the utilization of military force is not present between government to government conflicts. Military force in complex interdependence can be extraneous on training on disputes on monetary matters amid affiliates of any alliance, however may be essential for that "alliances political and military relations with a rival bloc. "

Theories of complex interdependence can be closely related with the issue currently residing in the Arctic region. For example, countries considering the Arctic only display interest to a country or region if their state advantages from it. In cases like this, United States demonstrates their desire for the Arctic region because of the mass amount of natural resources the spot carries. By protecting their interests, USA as well as Russia and other arctic states are taking measures such as arming icebreakers to secure their claims. Canada as a result retaliates by setting up security satellites surveillance system to consider ships intruding in its waters. Another reason why complex interdependence theory can be closely applied with this situation is due to approaches Canada and the United States are taking to help reach a conclusion. The U. S. -Canada Arctic Policy was an effort to join interests in the two countries in the Arctic. Although no negotiations were made among both states, both states made an attempt to approach the issue without threatening to utilize military force.

Unlike realism, complex interdependence theory places an importance on the roles of International Organizations in state to state conflicts. The problem on the control of the Arctic region closely pertains to the model, complex interdependence. Complex interdependence is a model of theory known to be the most realistic by political scientists. A futuristic legal option that USA may consider is ratifying the United Nations Convention on regulations of Sea along with other negotiations protecting interests of both countries. The unification of both countries on the problem may help tackle other problems presented by other countries claiming the resources and territories in the Arctic region.

In conclusion, to overcome the battle between states over the Arctic territory, Canada and america must set aside their distinctions and reach to a choice combining interests from both of the states to avoid further conflicts. One way of reaching solution to this issue is by firmly taking realistic legal measures such as codifying an agreement, law or settlement. This may only be successfully established if Canada and the United States join their self-interests of the Arctic through the use of theories placed in the conceptual model, complex interdependence, to help maximize opportunities offered in your community.

Ошибка в функции вывода объектов.