CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY IN THE ARCTIC

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000800210006-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 27, 2012
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: April 1, 1970
• Content Type: REPORT

Q7-WV?.ftik'se.i ii 3.IXA.."4:4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP08C01297R000800210006-7
if
CIA/BGI PN 66.2499 ?
April 1970
cAA,,,-?1 ?
4;..t
5.4
CANADIAN SCNEREIGNTY IN THE ARCTIC
No clear definition of the extent of Canada's territorial -
jurisdiction over the lands and waters of the Arctic Archipelago
ha S ever been permanently established. During the past several
decades various and often conflicting interpretations have been
advanced by Canadian officials, but until recent years the
generally inaccessible and icebound North has not posed sovereignty
problems of sufficient magnitude to warrant international attention
and solution. With the passage of time and the development of new
technological capabilities, the problems to be resolved have
increased in number and grown more complex. The initiation of
polar flights in the 1950's, submarine passages under the ice in
the 1960's, and currently the voyage of the commercial tanker Manhattan
through the Northwest Passage have brought into focus many problems that
are peculiar to the Arctic.
Jurisdiction over the land areas in the North has been exerted by
Canada without challenge for several decades, even though never
formally recognized in International Courts of Law. As early as 1897.
the Arctic Archipelago was included as part of the new District of
Franklin. ' In 1904 a map showed Canada as extending all the way to
the North Pole via sector lines along the 60th and 141st meridians
a theory Canada has intermittently cited and continued to mai). By
the 1920's territorial outposts were established and regulatory
practices were in force throughout the North. Since 1930, when
Norway relinquished any rights to the SverdrUp Islands, no foreign
claims have beelkmade, and for many years foreign (including U.S.)
compliance with Canadian requirements in the Arctic, has stood as
evidence of general acceptance of her jurisdiction, at least over
the land.
Sovereignty over water and ice areas, however, has yet to be
resolved. The extreme climatic characteristics of the Arctic
Archipelago present unique problems and pose many questions that do
not pertain to the rest of the world, but in the past practically no
attention has been given in international law to areas of perennial
or perpetual ice. The Northwest Passage is usually blocked 8 to 10
months annually and occasionally for the entire year. Only in recent
years have reinforced Ships (Canadian or U.S.') succeeded in negotiating
it during the summer, and it has yet to be proven feasible as an
international shipping route for even a short period each year; the
Manhattan was turned back by.massive pressure ridges of compacted ice
in M'Clure Strait even with the assistance of icebreakers, necessitating
the use of the narrow Prince of Wales Strait.
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27 : CIA-RDPO8C01297R000800210006-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP08C01297R000800210006-7
,-*
!,
Canada's Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1964 continued
her traditional 3-mile rule for territorial seas, the baselines for
which are determined by the straight baseline method rather than the.
.coastline method. To date, application of this provision has actually
occurred only in western coastal waters and in eastern coastal waters
south of 60?N. According to the American interpretation, the methods
used exceeded the limits laid down by the Geneva Conventions of 1958,
and therefore the United States does not concur with these Canadian claims.
Additional baselines, northward along the coast to about (0?N, were
included in the original Canadian proposals to protect historically
important fishing zones there. However, the baseline delineation across
several major coastal indentations caused such strenuous objections by
the United States that these proposals were never put into effect.
Recent agitation among Canadian pressure groups aroused by threats
of pollution and potential imbalances in the ecology of the:Arctic, may
precipitate more inclusive claims by Canada in the North than have
formerly been proposed. Two courses of action with broad ramifications
are currently under consideration in Ottawa: 1) to treat the entire
Archipelago as a whole; and 2) to establish a 100-mile Pollution Zone
around the Archipelago.
.The application, around the entire4trchipe1ago, of straight base-
lines would place Canada's territorial wsAks around that perimeter,
leaving all of the channels through the islands as internal waters over
which Canada would, under international law; have complete control.
Despite her assurances of the right of innocent Passage through these
waters, as well as the declaration of this right under the Geneva
Convention, it .is almost certain that Canada would impose whatever
restrictions she deemed in her own interest. The international
implications of so large an area becoming internal waters, especially
within an archipelago, are too complex to permit the United States to
Support the proposal. The possible alternative of delineating
territorial waters around each island in the Archipelago would place
much less stringent restrictions on foreign vessels, leave portions of
the Northwest Passage as part of the high seas, and prohibit Canada
from controlling water areas far beyond normal jurisdictional authority.
The establishment of the 100-mile Pollution Zone would give Canada
unprecedented control over shipping and other activities within 100
miles of the nearest Canadian shore (limited by the 141st meridian on
the west and the median line between Greenland and Canada on the east).
CONheJENT1A1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP08C01297R000800210006-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP08C01297R000800210006-7
#.?
,
441
Its purpose would be to protect the entire Archipelago from the
threat of surface pollution. Preventive regulations, prohibitions,
penalties, requirements for financial responsibility and liability, and
enforcement procedures would be legislated, and shipping safety control
zones would be designated to check safety standards of entering ships.
The territorial sea would be extended to a width Of 12 miles. Canada
justifies such extreme measures on-the bases of degree of risk involved
in navigating Arctic waters, the threat to Canadian interests, the
right of self defense, and the need for effective action soon rather
than waiting for international law to cope with anti-pollution
jurisdiction after much damage is done. The United States is in
agreement with the Canadians as to the need for protection, of the
Arctic against pollution and other destructive practices and would
support the establishment of an international body to administer
measures of control. It would be difficult, however, for the United
States to sanction any one nation's having the power inherent in the
Canadian proposal regarding pollution control.
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP08C01297R000800210006-7