Andrea Charron: Canada’s UN submission will (eventually) draw the last lines on the map
In May 2019, Canada made a partial submission to the United Nations to recognize an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean. This means that Canada will soon have the last lines drawn on the map of Canada.
Canada’s submission was made to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) under Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
There was surprisingly little fanfare over this extraordinary accomplishment in a week of maritime-related accomplishments that included Canada acceding to an international moratorium to prevent unregulated commercial fishing in the central Arctic Ocean.
As a political scientist, I want to understand the processes used, the states involved and the international organizations and law that guided this extraordinary example of global governance.
This video, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, outlines how the government measures and defines land that is hidden deep under water or ice.
Shelf’s edge
First, what is the continental shelf? Imagine you are standing on an ocean beach. You decide to keep walking for as long as you can feel ground beneath your feet. This ground is the seabed and subsoil, and coastal states have inherent right to explore and exploit the natural resources.
According to UNCLOS, this does not depend upon occupation or an express proclamation; in other words, Canada need not provide any justification. And if the coastal state can provide evidence that its continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles — the outer continental shelf — Canada can explore and extract mineral and other non-living resources from the seabed and subsoil.
An illustration showing the zones as pertaining to the limits of a state’s jurisdiction. UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
Canada’s partial submission to the CLCS, which includes written explanations and physical evidence, was led by branches of the federal government: Global Affairs Canada, Geological Survey of Canada and the Canadian Hydrographic Service.
There was also extensive assistance and participation by various Indigenous groups, Canada’s territorial governments, Parks Canada, the Canadian Ice Service, the Canadian Coast Guard, Defence Research and Development Canada and the Department of National Defence.
Collecting information
Collecting data in the Arctic is extremely difficult and costly. It is only possible to navigate the Arctic in the summer months, and even then, the perennial ice coverage and weather, wind and current conditions pose challenges.
Data collected for Canada’s submission included bathymetric, gravimetric, seismic, areo-gravity and areo-metric information. Retrieving 800 kg of rock samples and three piston cores involves engineering and scientific feats of marvel, bravery and sheer determination.
Considering Canada had more rock samples from the moon than from the Arctic, it is a reminder of how little is known about the Arctic. Imagine, therefore, the scientific breakthroughs Canada and the world have yet to discover with this data especially now that government scientists helping with Canada’s submission are now at liberty to publish their findings in academic journals.
Collaboration and geopolitics
Canada’s submission was aided by collaboration with the governments of Denmark, Sweden (and especially its icebreaker Oden), the U.S. and Germany.
The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by five coastal states: Canada, Russia, the U.S., Denmark (via Greenland and the Faroe Islands) and Norway. It was anticipated by all of the Arctic states that Russia, the U.S., Canada and Denmark, by virtue of their adjacent and opposite locations, could have overlapping claims.
A map of the Arctic Ocean, showing the surrounding countries. Shutterstock
It was expected that all four would collect data from at least some of the same areas of extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Russia, Denmark and Canada have all made at least partial submissions to the CLCS which will review the scientific evidence and provide technical feedback regarding the scientific integrity of the data provided.
The CLCS cannot reconcile overlapping claims. Annex 1 of the CLSC’s rules of procedure notes that “matters regarding disputes which may arise in connection with the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf rests with States.”
Establishing boundaries
Canada, Russia, Denmark and the U.S. are expected to continue to negotiate, as they will have the final say in determining the extent of the boundaries. This means Canada has years to wait before the process is completed, and there are a few caveats to keep in mind.
First, given the highly technical nature of the evidence and the few number of commission members, Canada’s submission is not expected to be fully reviewed by the CLCS for many years. Canada’s Arctic submission is currently number 84 on the CLCS’ list.
Second, the U.S. is not a party to UNCLOS although it does treat much of it, including Article 76, as customary law (meaning the U.S. agrees to the outlined principles). The U.S. has an active Extended Continental Shelf program and the government is collecting data in anticipation of ongoing negotiations.
Third, there is no time crunch for the resources of the extended continental shelf given the distance, cost and difficulties to access them. Many tend to assume that resources do exist for exploitation, but it could also be that there is nothing of commercial worth available.
Fourth, any resources and activity within the water and airspace beyond 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline belongs to everyone and is governed by international law.
Finally, there are limitations in UNCLOS on the extent of the continental shelf and Article 82 of UNCLOS provides for a system of revenue sharing by means of payments or contributions in kind with respect to the extraction of non-living resources of the continental shelf lying beyond 200 nautical miles. Given the small size of the Arctic Ocean, however, most of it is already captured within the Arctic coastal states’ exclusive economic zones.
Canada’s Executive Summary submission is available for anyone to review. Despite the complexity of the data, the submission is very readable and excellent scholarship. This reflects the extraordinary work of Canada’s scientists and civil servants, and is an example of global governance working well.
Andrea Charron on CBC's The House
Russia and China act differently in the Arctic than in the rest of the world, experts say
By Chris Hall, host of The House
Canada is dealing with "two Russias" and "two Chinas" when it comes to the Arctic, according to two researchers.
Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, says those two nations have very different approaches in the North, versus their abrasive approach to other multilateral world issues.
Russia, Denmark and Canada are currently jostling to see who gets sovereignty over the North Pole — a decision that will eventually be made by the United Nations.
While jurisdiction is still in question, Charron says Russia has been very cooperative in working with other nations in the Arctic.
"We have the Russia that we're very concerned about in Ukraine, we're very concerned about their activities in Syria, poisonings in the United Kingdom. There is a lot to be worried about," she said.
"But on the other hand when it comes to the Arctic, Russia is going to be essential for search and rescue."
Jennifer Spence, a fellow with the Centre for International Governance Innovation's Arctic Program, agreed.
Who gets to plant their flag at the top of the world? Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, and Jennifer Spence, a professor of northern studies at Carleton University, talk about what's at stake and Canada's claims to the North Pole.
She added that China is also looking for partners as it watches the dispute from afar.
"You'll see you see that China's working very heavily with Russia because they have found that they have a very productive partnership that meets both their goals."
Spence added that kind of cooperation between China and Canada likely isn't possible.
"I'm not sure that will happen as easily in Canada especially with a partner with a close relationship with the United States who has its own concerns with China."
Charron said the same view could be applied to China, as to Russia.
"We have two Chinas. We have the China that can be cooperative in the Arctic [and] we have this other China whom we're very concerned about the advantage in the Arctic region."
However, no decisions on who claims the top of the world will be made in the immediate future.
Spence said it's likely going to be 30 to 50 years before any serious conclusion is reached — which could benefit China's political cycle.
"China has a 100 year plan. We have a four year plan, maybe."
Carleton Launches Canadian Defence and Security Network
At a time of rapid change on the world stage, Canada is facing new challenges in its relations with countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and even the United States.
That prompted Professor Stephen Saideman in the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs to create the Canadian Defence and Security Network, which is officially launching on May 24th.
“The idea is to bring together people who are studying or working in defence and security throughout Canada to build a community,” says Saideman, who holds the Norman Paterson Chair in International Affairs. “This is a big country and there are a lot of divides between academia, civil society and the military across the country. We want to have more interaction so we can anticipate the research interests of the government and the military.”
The centre will focus on five research themes, including defence procurement, military personnel, operations, security, and civil-military relations. Each theme will have a joint academic/government/civil society/defence team associated with it, assessing what Canada does well and what it does poorly on the defence and security front.
“A lot of assumptions about how the world works are up for grabs right now,” says Saideman. “The government is consumed by the day-to-day, but we as academics have longer time horizons so we can help think beyond tomorrow.”
In addition to research projects, the Canadian Defence and Security Network is also focused on outreach. It’s planning a summer training institute that brings together military officers and policy officials, an online portal for Canada’s international relations, a podcast, and more. It will also be present on Twitter, with the handle @CdsnRcds.
Saideman hopes the network will lead to improved literacy about defence and security within Canada, as well as a new generation of scholars and scientists interested in the topic.
He says the centre would not have been possible without the support of the Faculty of Public Affairs, especially Dean André Plourde and research facilitator Kyla Read; as well as support from the Office of the Vice-President (Research and International); And his home department, the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.
Connecting the dots on defence research in Canada
With the launch of a new network of security experts in Canada, Steve Saideman chats with OpenCanada about the state of defence research in this country and the issues on his radar.
With Canadian defence issues regularly in the news — from the decision not to extend Canada’s contribution to Operation Presence in Mali to the withdrawing of charges against the military’s once second-in-command, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman — we consider it our duty at OpenCanada to continue to provide analysis and commentary on those issues, when warranted. To aid in that effort, this week, one of our regular contributors, defence and security scholar Steve Saideman, is launching a new network of experts across the country who will be working together on events and publications over the next several years.
As OpenCanada is one of the network’s media partners, we chatted with Saideman in advance of the launch on why he thinks there is a need for such a network, which defence issues and critical questions are currently on his mind — and should be on the minds of Canadians — and which events to watch next.
1. What is the state of defence research in Canada at the moment?
The good news is that there are many scholars and defence scientists doing excellent work across Canada. The bad news is that they are mostly disconnected from each other, from government, from the armed forces, and from those in civil society. Many individuals are well-connected, but there are big divides that are hard to bridge, especially when the people on the other side (the military and people in the government) rotate out of their jobs and into new ones every two to three years.
2. What are some topics or questions that need addressing when it comes to defence and security in Canada?
What does Canada do well? What is Canada’s comparative military advantage? What are the goals of our defence policies? The basics are pretty clear — defend Canada, participate in NORAD and NATO.
For personnel issues, the government has wonderful aspirations, but there seem to be structural dynamics within the military making reform very difficult. How do we know these efforts will last beyond the current government and current chief of the defence staff?
For procurement issues, all democracies have problems buying expensive equipment in a timely manner, but Canada seems to have more problems than most. We can’t take the politics out the process, but can we improve the process so that the parties have a bit less to fight about?
Coverage of Canadian defence is episodic — the media cares when there is a debate in parliament or a bad news story. Can we figure out ways for media outlets to cover issues more deeply and more broadly over time so that the public has a better idea of what is going on?
3. Tell us about the new network you are launching.
The Canadian Defence and Security Network (CDSN) involves over 30 partners and a hundred academics. The aim is to have more collaboration across the various divides (regional, linguistic, civil-military, etc.) so that we can provide more evidence-based, policy-relevant research that the government actually listens to while also training a more inclusive next generation of defence scholars.
We are organizing five streams of research — on defence procurement, military personnel, operations, civil-military relations and security. Co-directors of the CDSN will organize each of these, based across Canada. CDSN HQ, based at Carleton University, will try to provide the glue not just among the five themes but also between the entire defence and security community in Canada and international partners. HQ will help connect the participants and partners, it will organize a variety of events (summer training institute, book workshops, conferences, etc.) as well as engage in a social media campaign (Twitter, blogs, podcasts, etc.) to help amplify the work being done by those in the network. The network also includes on-call experts to help the government and media explain and analyze current events.
Officially, the network launches May 24, with an organizational meeting and reception. In June, we will also be supporting two member events, and in the summer, we will launch our social media efforts, including a podcast. In the fall and winter, we will have a series of thematic workshops, and we will also be amplifying any events our partners put on.
4. Which defence and security issues are on your radar this week, in Canada or globally?
First, the Mark Norman story — where a procurement project became a political hot potato and ultimately upended the career of the second highest ranking officer in the Canadian Armed Forces — points to a variety of issues in how Canada makes procurement decisions.
Second, US President Donald Trump’s pardoning of one war criminal with more on the horizon raises questions about whether Canada can partner with the United States in future missions where war crimes are possible.
And third, a Statistics Canada report on sexual harassment and assault in the Canadian Armed Forces just came out, so we need to take a look at it and see where we can do better.
5. Which events should we be watching out for in coming months?
The seventy-fifth anniversary of D-Day is June 6. That will provide much opportunity for allies and former adversaries to get together and consider the progress made in the past and the perils we face today. It also gives Trump an opportunity to antagonize allies. Given that Canada was one of the key providers of troops that landed on that day, I expect much media and government attention. This may be the last big anniversary for those who fought that day.
Additionally, two members of our network have events later in the month. The Kingston Conference on International Security, which involves Queen’s University, the US Army War College, the NATO Defence College and elements of the Canadian Forces, runs June 10 to 12. It brings together sharp people discussing a specific set of issues. This year’s conference focuses on the changing international order.
Women in International Security-Canada are holding their annual workshop from June 17 to 19 in Toronto. Their aim is to provide opportunities for women, especially more junior defence and security scholars and scientists, to present research, get feedback and to network.
Source: OpenCanada
CDSN-RCDS Launch: May 24th, 2019
At a time of rapid change on the world stage, Canada is facing new challenges in its relations with countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and even the United States.
That prompted Professor Stephen Saideman in the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs to create the Canadian Defence and Security Network, which is officially launching on May 24th.
“The idea is to bring together people who are studying or working in defence and security throughout Canada to build a community,” says Saideman, who holds the Norman Paterson Chair in International Affairs. “This is a big country and there are a lot of divides between academia, civil society and the military across the country. We want to have more interaction so we can anticipate the research interests of the government and the military.”
The centre will focus on five research themes, including defence procurement, military personnel, operations, security, and civil-military relations. Each theme will have a joint academic/government/civil society/defence team associated with it, assessing what Canada does well and what it does poorly on the defence and security front.
“A lot of assumptions about how the world works are up for grabs right now,” says Saideman. “The government is consumed by the day-to-day, but we as academics have longer time horizons so we can help think beyond tomorrow.”
In addition to research projects, the Canadian Defence and Security Network is also focused on outreach. It’s planning a summer training institute that brings together military officers and policy officials, an online portal for Canada’s international relations, a podcast, and more.
Saideman hopes the network will lead to improved literacy about defence and security within Canada, as well as a new generation of scholars and scientists interested in the topic.
He says the centre would not have been possible without the support of the Faculty of Public Affairs, especially Dean André Plourde and research facilitator Kyla Read; as well as support from the Office of the Vice-President (Research and International); And his home department, the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.
