Northern Sovereignty and Political Geography in North America
Summary
Northern Sovereignty and Political Geography in North America was a workshop held at the
headquarters of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS) in Washington, DC,
June 14, 2010. The event was organized by ACSUS in partnership with the Center for International
Studies, Western Washington University, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of
Washington, and Trent University. The workshop sought to enhance understanding of Arctic
sovereignty issues among American scholars, academics and policymakers who specialize in northern
issues and concerns.
Focus was on Canadian understandings and perspectives. Frequently this Canadian vantage point is
absent from the discourse on Arctic issues within the academic and policy communities in the United
States. This results in a rather limited and unbalanced understanding of the full range of issues and
concerns at stake within the contemporary North. The workshop facilitated interaction between invited
Canadian and American speakers knowledgeable of northern affairs and selected representatives from
the academic, policy and government circles in the United States. A key component of the workshop
was its presentation of Canadian views utilizing a wide set of critical perspectives-geographic, political,
economic, environmental and socio-cultural. The workshop also sought to understand sovereignty from
the perspective of both national and regional governments as well as the Inuit of the area. The
workshop gave Americans a better understand of their "neighbor to the north" in a vital area of
international concern and action.
"Historical, Political and Legal Dimensions of Canadian Claims to Sovereignty in the North," Philip
Steinberg, Department of Geography, Florida State University focused on the intrinsic importance of
understanding oceans, ocean law and the spatial dynamics of maritime spaces within the context of
Arctic sovereignty claims, i.e., the political organization of maritime versus land claims. Steinburg
suggests that there is an interesting inconsistency in the way in which UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) substantiates these spatial divisions. UNCLOS-referenced claims, as a system, treat all
maritime spaces consistently as opposed to a system in which specific maritime spaces are considered
as "special". One of the interesting elements of this presentation was thus the sub-text which ran
throughout the talk, effectively raising the issue of how regionalized institutions and regionally defined
seas are both constitutive of, and yet at the same time challenge, customary maritime law whose
conventions are universalized.
This tension informs Canadian state claims to the Arctic as well as claims by indigenous peoples whose
sovereign claim to the Arctic is underscored by opposition to a universal claim to distinct land and
maritime spaces, places and legal-political systems. Steinberg argues that this tension, when coupled
with the Canadian State's vision of the Arctic as a special place -that is to say as an identity marker, an
historical context and a maritime region which cannot be understood in term of the universal
application of maritime rules - is a dangerous game-unlikely to be successful. Steinberg suggests that the
a danger is in the way in which "specialness" might be understood differently, and indeed Canadian
sovereignty challenged, by other state as well as non-state actors. This is because Canada's
disagreements with its neighbours can be understood and will be mediated through this customary law
– and as such claims to specialness may be unsubstantiated.
For Steinberg, such spatial claims, because they of not apply to the principal of "uniformity" inherent in
UNCLOS, are weak and not legitimate. His discussant, Heather Nicol, Department of Geography, Trent
University, asserted that there ways in which this argument can be challenged. If Inuit and indigenous
claims are substantiated by another branch of the UN -the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP) which also become customary law, mudding the puddle by superimposing a new layer
of "uniformity" in substance and intention. Canada's indigenous peoples are already trying to seek
legitimation of the UNDRIP provisions for the case of their use of Arctic waters.
In "Protecting and Promoting Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security," Rob Huebert, Center for
Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary argues that major changes presented by climate
change in the Arctic, and progressive (and unprecedented) maritime accessibility to some parts of the
northern waters by regional and global actors have caused the five coastal states to gradually adopt
"new" policies focusing on military means to defend their interests in the High North since 2006. His
analysis questions discourse highlighting established and longstanding stability of institutionalized
international relations in the Arctic region. He suggests that we are witnessing a pattern of "copycat"
behaviour between Arctic coastal states fueling the militarization of the Arctic and, therefore, making
states more vulnerable and the Arctic a highly sensitive strategic area.
Even though Huebert acknowledges that there is a low possibility of any kind of armed conflict breakout
in the near future in the Arctic, he does believe that Canada must prepare for the worst case scenario
Huebert's central point is that confidence building - working on what already exists - is key to Arctic
security and stability. States will also profit from working together and others.
Joël Plouffe, University of Quebec at Montreal, discussant for Huebbert's paper, took issue with
Huebert's preoccupation with tensions or conflicts coming from actors outside the Arctic Circle, and
asserted that more focus should be placed on other established institutionalized cooperation in the
circumpolar world, e.g., trans-border relations in the Barents region, the Barents Council, EU implication
in the Barents region, and other forms of bilateral and multilateral collaboration.
Terry Fenge, Consultant on Aboriginal, Environmental and Circumpolar Affairs, presented a paper titled
"The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Process and the 2005 Inuit Human Rights Petition."
Stéphane Roussel, Research Chair on Canadian Foreign Policy and Defence, University of Quebec at
Montreal provided an overview of some of the issues and concerns that are at stake in the North today
from global warming, to economic and social development, to the recurring theme of national
sovereignty. He along with Professor Huebert and Professor Steinberg presented compelling arguments
for why developments in the Arctic deserve our most careful attention and why a traditional and status
quo response to them is no longer unacceptable.
Roussel notes that, there has been a tendency on the part of the various political and governmental
players of the area to inflate the discussion into a broader discourse on national identity and
sovereignty. He maintains that the central issues of the contemporary Arctic ultimately come down to
more everyday questions of how we are to provide adequate environmental protection, search and
rescue capabilities and human security within the region.
By framing the challenge within a North American context, Roussel argues that much progress could be
achieved in addressing some of these immediate, practical issues by encouraging greater day-to-day
collaboration between Canada and the United States. In this manner he suggests, a framework of
regional collaboration can be established that will ultimately overcome narrower national differences.
Roussel cites the IJC's role in managing border environmental issues and NORAD as examples s where
previous joint U.S.-Canadian problem solving created a "habit of cooperation". The clear message here
is: Can we not come up with another such North American regional authority to address the real Arctic
concerns of Canadian and Americans?
Doug Nord, Western Washington University, challenged Roussel's analysis in three areas. First, by
framing the issue primarily as a North American concern it may be overstretch to say that the North
American collaboration on practical issues can be separated off from similar circumpolar concerns.
Second, Nord questions the need for a bilateral organizational framework when existing international
structures to address Arctic concerns already exist. As Professor Roussel notes, the Arctic Council and
the Inuit Circumpolar Council already operate as the primary discussion and problem solving forum for
the region. Nord advocates that Canada and the US enhance these bodies to address and solve practical
northern concerns rather than create an alternative-perhaps less responsive-institutional framework.
Third, Nord questions whether focusing on "practical matters" will truly silence the debate over more
emotive concerns such as sovereignty and national identity.
In "Canada's Sovereignty in the Arctic: An Inuit Perspective," Jean-François Arteau, Legal Counsel and
Executive Assistant to the President of Makivik Corporation, Quebec City argues that if Canada wishes to
maintain its sovereignty and leadership role in the Arctic, ensuring healthy communities and Inuit
expertise in future policy making is essential. The Makivik Corporation serves as a model for Arteau's
recommendations. Since 1975 Makivik has administered the compensation funds from the James Bay
and Northern Québec Agreement. Today Makivik's equity is over two and a half times what it was in
1975. In addition, the corporation has two Inuit-owned airlines, and numerous subsidiary companies
and joint ventures including Nunavik Creations, the Nunavik Research Centre, Nunavut Arctic Shipping,
Unaaq Fisheries - to mention just a few. Nunavik is also in the process of obtaining political autonomy
that will give the region even more say over its future.
The Canadian government has been preoccupied with territorial concerns and economic development,
says Arteau, sometimes overlooking human security and healthy community development. The Makivik
Corporation and the Inuit of Nunavik, according to Arteau, have tremendous expertise to offer the
Government of Canada regarding sovereignty. The people of Nunavik were involved in some of the first
national sovereignty efforts when dozens of families were relocated to the high Arctic during the Cold
War. At that time the Inuit did not have a voice in the international arena. All this has changed. Today
the Inuit are organized politically and are effecting policy development concerning the Arctic on a global
scale. Following the Arctic Five meeting in Ilulissat in 2008, for example, the Inuit drafted A Circumpolar
Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic (2009) to challenge traditional nation-state negotiations in
favor of pan-national organizations such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council. The Inuit will no longer be left
out of international dialogues concerning their region and communities.
In her response, Nadine Fabbi, Canadian Studies Center, University of Washington, concludes that Mr.
Arteau effectively argues that ensuring healthy communities and Inuit expertise in future policy making
will be essential if Canada wishes to maintain its sovereignty and leadership role in the
Arctic. Fabbi supports Arteau’s opinion that intensifying global interest in the Arctic makes it in Canada’s
best interest to put significant support into building human capacity in the Arctic region. Inuit values,
Inuit domestic policies and foreign policies must be fully integrated into Canada’s international
strategies in the Arctic in order that Canada win respect as a leader in the Circumpolar World.