Constructing Arctic Sovereignty

359 Pages·2014·9.12 MB·English

Constructing
 Arctic
 Sovereignty

Rules,
 Policy
 &
 Governance
 1494-­‐2013

A
 thesis
 submitted
 for
 the
 degree
 of

Doctor
 of
 Philosophy

By

Corine
 Wood-­‐Donnelly

School
 of
 Social
 Sciences

Brunel
 University

March
 2014
Table
 of
 Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 .....................................................................................
 3

LIST
 OF
 FIGURES
 .................................................................................................
 4

ABSTRACT
 .............................................................................................................
 6

INTRODUCTION
 ...................................................................................................
 7

PART
 ONE:
 RULES
 ............................................................................................
 32

CHAPTER
 I:
 THE
 CASE
 OF
 THE
 MELTING
 ARCTIC:
 SOVEREIGNTY,

IMPERIALISM
 AND
 THE
 INTERNATIONAL
 SYSTEM
 ..............................
 33

CHAPTER
 II:
 A
 GENEALOGY
 OF
 THE
 RULES
 AND
 CODES
 OF
 ARCTIC

SOVEREIGNTY
 ...................................................................................................
 78

PART
 TWO:
 POLICY
 .......................................................................................
 141

CHAPTER
 III:
 U.S.
 ARCTIC
 POLICY
 1867-­‐2013
 .....................................
 142

CHAPTER
 IV:
 CANADIAN
 ARCTIC
 POLICY
 1870-­‐2013
 ........................
 173

CHAPTER
 V:
 RUSSIAN
 ARCTIC
 POLICY
 1619-­‐2013
 .............................
 203

PART
 THREE:
 GOVERNANCE
 ......................................................................
 236

CHAPTER
 VI:
 ARCTIC
 GOVERNANCE:
 TRANSFORMATION,
 RULES

AND
 DOCTRINE
 ...............................................................................................
 237

CHAPTER
 VII:
 A
 POLITICAL
 ASSESSMENT
 OF
 THE
 ARCTIC
 SEARCH

AND
 RESCUE
 AGREEMENT:
 TEXT,
 FRAMING
 AND
 LOGICS
 ................
 264

CHAPTER
 VIII:
 A
 PENDING
 GOVERNANCE
 ISSUE:
 THE
 LEGAL
 STATUS

OF
 ICE
 .................................................................................................................
 282

CONCLUSIONS
 ..................................................................................................
 315

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 ...............................................................................................
 327

  2
Acknowledgements

 While
 the
 cover
 of
 this
 thesis
 designates
 credit
 to
 only
 one

name,
 this
 project
 has
 been
 supported
 by
 a
 great
 number
 of

people,
 without
 whom
 the
 completion
 would
 have
 been
 more

arduous,
 if
 not
 impossible.
 To
 the
 following
 I
 proffer
 my
 gratitude:

• Supervisor
 Dr
 Gareth
 Dale
 for
 his
 support
 and
 guidance,
 reading

multiple
 drafts
 of
 each
 chapter
 and
 providing
 both
 academic
 and

personal
 support.

• Second
 supervisor
 Dr
 John
 Macmillan,
 who
 read
 drafts
 of
 several

chapters.

• To
 these
 institutions
 for
 funding:
 The
 Foundation
 for
 Women

Graduates
 for
 a
 third
 year
 expenses
 grant.
 The
 Brunel
 Graduate

School,
 for
 funding
 to
 attend
 conferences
 in
 the
 UK
 and
 Iceland.

The
 UK-­‐Canada
 Colloquium,
 for
 the
 opportunity
 to
 attend
 the

colloquium
 in
 Ottawa
 and
 Iqaluit.
 Brunel
 Department
 of
 Politics
 &

History,
 for
 a
 final
 year
 expenses
 grant.

• The
 many
 who
 engaged
 in
 informal,
 but
 inspiring
 conversations
 on

the
 Arctic
 or
 on
 my
 research
 broadly:
 Emeritus
 Prof
 Clive
 Archer,

Dr
 Michael
 Bravo,
 Adam
 Fabry,
 Duncan
 Depledge,
 Dr
 Christian

Gustafson,
 Prof
 Mark
 Neocleous,
 Dr
 Richard
 Powell,
 Dr
 David

Scott,
 Prof
 Phillip
 Steinberg,
 Adam
 Stepien
 and
 the
 late
 Prof
 Kaiyan

Kaikobad.

• The
 dear
 friends
 and
 family
 who
 supported
 me
 on
 this
 journey:

Toni
 Allison,
 Adam
 Fabry,
 Suzanne
 Finley,
 Danielle
 Gingerich,

Matthew
 Goddard,
 Cynthia
 Hung,
 Tim
 Jones,
 Alexandra
 Lanning,

Mark
 McIntosh,
 Major
 Ross
 Schellhaas,
 Dr
 Nikii
 Wang,
 the
 late
 Ian

Ferguson
 and
 the
 late
 Dr
 Amanda
 Rohloff,
 amongst
 many,
 many

more.

• The
 stars
 of
 the
 Brunel
 Politics
 History
 admin
 team:
 Amreen
 Malik

and
 Ushma
 Gudka.

• A
 million
 thanks
 to
 those
 friends
 allowed
 me
 to
 write
 at
 odd
 and

prolonged
 hours
 in
 their
 kitchens,
 living
 rooms
 and
 cafes,
 ensuring

the
 tea
 supply
 never
 ran
 out.

• And
 for
 those
 who
 put
 their
 arms
 around
 me
 when
 I
 lost
 my

beloved
 during
 this
 project,
 eternal
 gratitude.

  3
List
 of
 Figures

Chapter
 1:
 The
 Case
 of
 the
 Melting
 Arctic:
 Sovereignty,

Imperialism
 and
 the
 International
 System

Figure
 1:
 Addition
 of
 Rules
 in
 the
 Function
 Machine
 of
 the

International
 System………………………………………………………47

Figure
 2:
 Exploration
 of
 the
 Arctic……………………………...……58

Figure
 3:
 Landing
 of
 the
 Treasures,
 or
 Results
 of
 the
 Polar

Expedition,
 1819…………………………………………………….………60

Figure
 4:
 U.S.S.R.
 Publicity
 Poster
 Stalin
 and
 the
 Arctic,

1939………………………………………………………………………….…...65

Chapter
 2:
 A
 Genealogy
 of
 the
 Rules
 and
 Codes
 of
 Arctic

Sovereignty

Figure
 1:
 Timeline
 of
 Rules
 and
 Codes
 in
 Arctic
 International

Law………………………………………………………………………………..82

Figure
 2:
 Map
 by
 Columbus……………………………………………..85

Figure
 3:
 Treaty
 of
 Tordesillas………………………………………...87

Figure
 4:
 Lines
 of
 Amity…………………………………………………..91

Figure
 5:
 Selden’s
 Mare
 Clausum……………………………………..99

Figure
 6:
 Hudson’s
 Bay
 circa
 1700…………………………………107

Figure
 7:
 Dominion
 of
 Canada
 1882………………………………121

Figure
 8:
 Canadian
 Maps
 1927
 and
 2007……………………….125

Figure
 9:
 Maritime
 Zones
 under
 UNCLOS
 III…………………..131

Figure
 10:
 Maritime
 Jurisdiction
 and
 Boundaries
 in
 the

Arctic
 Region………………………………………………………………..135

Chapter
 6:
 Arctic
 Governance:
 Transformation,
 Rules
 and
 Doctrine

Figure
 1:
 Arctic
 Governance
 Agreements
 vs.
 Antarctic
 Treaty

System…………………………………………………………………………256

Chapter
 7:
 A
 Political
 Assessment
 of
 the
 Arctic
 Search
 and
 Rescue

Agreement:
 Text,
 Framing
 and
 Logics

  4
Figure
 1:
 Arctic
 Search
 and
 Rescue
 Delimitation
 Map……..270

Figure
 2:
 Amver
 Density
 Plot
 September

2012…………….…276

Chapter
 8:
 A
 Pending
 Governance
 Issue:
 The
 Legal
 Status
 of
 Ice

Figure
 1:
 Overlapping
 Legal
 Codes
 in
 the
 Arctic

Maritime………………………………………………………………………302

Figure
 2:
 International
 Ice
 Patrol:
 General
 Drift
 Pattern
 of

Icebergs……………………………………………………………….………303

Figure
 3:
 Iceberg
 Frequency
 and
 Locations
 on
 15
 April

2012…………………………………………………………………….………304

  5
Abstract

 Constructing
 Arctic
 Sovereignty:
 Rules,
 Policy
 and
 Governance

1494-­‐2013
 is
 a
 meta-­‐narrative
 of
 the
 development
 of
 state

sovereignty
 in
 the
 Arctic.
 It
 investigates
 the
 evolution
 of
 the
 rules

of
 the
 international
 system
 over
 the
 longue
 durée,
 in
 so
 far
 as
 they

frame
 Arctic
 sovereignty.
 It
 examines
 in
 particular
 the
 increasing

importance
 of
 the
 legal
 dimension
 of
 territory
 and
 the
 transitions

that
 have
 occurred
 with
 the
 introduction
 of
 new
 rules
 used
 by

states
 to
 establish
 sovereignty.
 The
 thesis
 analyses
 the
 policy
 of

the
 United
 States,
 Canada
 and
 Russia
 as
 they
 pursue
 their
 national

interests
 in
 the
 region,
 with
 reference
 to
 (and
 at
 times
 in

contravention
 of)
 international
 rules
 and
 codes,
 and
 it
 situates

governance
 within
 the
 framework
 of
 the
 international
 system
 as
 a

mechanism
 for
 states
 to
 pursue
 their
 interests
 in
 the
 Arctic
 beyond

their
 sovereign
 borders.
 This
 thesis
 makes
 an
 original
 contribution

to
 knowledge
 through
 its
 distinctive
 methodology
 and
 theoretical

approach,
 as
 well
 as
 through
 its
 analysis
 of
 primary
 materials.

Using
 the
 pillars
 of
 a
 constructivist
 research
 framework
 -­‐-­‐

including
 rules
 and
 interests
 over
 the
 longue
 durée
 -­‐-­‐
 to
 develop
 a

meta-­‐narrative
 of
 Arctic
 sovereignty,
 it
 situates
 contemporary

Arctic
 foreign
 policy
 and
 governance
 within
 the
 evolving

framework
 of
 the
 international
 system,
 identifying
 imperialism
 as

a
 common
 thread
 in
 the
 relationship
 between
 the
 Arctic
 states
 and

Arctic
 territory.
 It
 concludes
 that
 the
 expansion
 of
 sovereignty

over
 this
 new
 territory
 represents
 the
 continuation
 of
 imperialism

within
 the
 international
 system
 by
 states,
 perpetuating
 an

asymmetric
 relationship
 that
 allows
 states
 to
 absorb
 this
 territory

for
 the
 purposes
 of
 resource
 exploitation
 in
 the
 pursuit
 of
 national

interests,
 with
 international
 cooperation
 maintaining
 the
 primacy

of
 the
 Arctic
 states
 within
 the
 region.

  6
Introduction

 On
 2
 August
 2007,
 a
 Russian
 mini-­‐submarine
 commanded
 by

Arctic
 hero
 Artur
 Chilingarov
 descended
 into
 the
 depths
 of
 the

Arctic
 Ocean
 when
 “for
 the
 first
 time
 in
 the
 history
 of
 human

civilization
 man
 visited
 the
 real
 pole
 of
 the
 North.”1
 As
 a
 mark
 of

this
 expedition,
 a
 titanium
 flag
 of
 the
 Russian
 Federation
 was

planted
 on
 the
 seabed
 at
 the
 North
 Pole,
 repeating
 the
 ceremonies

of
 possession
 initiated
 by
 explorers
 in
 the
 Age
 of
 Discovery
 acting

on
 behalf
 of
 European
 empires,
 an
 action
 long
 considered
 to
 be
 an

initial
 step
 of
 territorial
 acquisition.
 The
 symbolic
 nature
 of
 this

undertaking
 was
 not
 lost
 on
 the
 rest
 of
 the
 world,
 eliciting
 the

immediate
 response
 from
 Canadian
 Foreign
 Minister
 Peter
 McKay,

“This
 isn’t
 the
 15th
 century.
 You
 can’t
 go
 around
 the
 world
 and

just
 plant
 flags
 and
 say
 ‘We’re
 claiming
 this
 territory’,”2
 a

statement
 denying
 the
 international
 acknowledgement
 necessary

for
 legitimacy
 to
 any
 claims
 Russia
 might
 have
 been
 entertaining.

The
 Arctic
 is
 considered
 the
 globe’s
 final
 frontier
 in
 both
 physical

and
 geopolitical
 imaginings.
 It
 has
 resisted
 conquest,
 armed
 with

perpetual
 ice
 and
 climatic
 and
 weather
 conditions
 so
 harsh
 that

many
 explorers
 lured
 by
 the
 siren
 song
 of
 Arctic
 enchantment

have
 been
 thwarted
 at
 the
 gates
 or
 never
 returned
 from
 their

expeditions.
 Through
 accepted
 norms
 of
 state
 behaviour
 during

the
 Age
 of
 Discovery,
 the
 terra
 firma
 of
 the
 Arctic
 has
 been

delineated
 into
 the
 political
 boundaries
 of
 the
 littoral
 states.

However,
 with
 the
 Arctic
 maritime
 and
 its
 resources
 remaining

locked
 in
 an
 icy
 safe,
 sovereign
 control
 of
 the
 Arctic
 maritime
 was

of
 little
 import
 in
 this
 period
 and
 failed
 to
 be
 resolved.
 The
 Arctic

is
 melting
 with
 global
 warming
 removing
 its
 conditional
 barriers

and,
 combined
 with
 the
 technology
 of
 modern
 world,
 the
 treasures

1
 (Plutenko,
 2008)

2
 (Parfitt,
 2007)

  7
of
 the
 Arctic
 are
 now
 within
 reach
 of
 extraction.
 The
 Arctic
 states

are
 keen
 to
 absorb
 these
 resources
 into
 their
 sovereign

jurisdiction,
 but
 the
 rules
 of
 the
 international
 system
 have

changed:
 territory
 in
 the
 maritime
 is
 governed
 by
 rules
 different

from
 terrestrial
 territory
 and
 flag
 planting
 is
 no
 longer
 an

acceptable
 method
 for
 annexation.

In
 the
 matter
 of
 establishing
 sovereignty
 over
 territory
 in
 the

Arctic,
 the
 states
 of
 Canada,
 Russia
 and
 the
 United
 States
 are

playing
 by
 the
 rules
 and
 have
 always
 played
 by
 the
 rules,
 but
 the

rules
 organising
 the
 international
 system
 have
 changed
 over
 four

discernible
 periods.
 These
 rules
 include
 both
 tacit
 norms
 and

those
 codified
 within
 international
 law
 and
 they
 serve
 as

guidelines
 instructing
 on
 the
 expected
 behaviour
 of
 states
 within

the
 international
 system.3
 Conceived
 in
 Europe,
 the
 international

system
 has
 been
 moulded
 into
 its
 current
 form
 through
 the
 forces

and
 methods
 of
 imperialism,
 developed
 through
 the
 expansion
 of

the
 community
 of
 states
 worldwide
 and
 through
 the
 introduction

of
 rules
 by
 states
 with
 the
 greatest
 influence.
 These
 new
 claims
 to

sovereignty
 over
 Arctic
 territory-­‐-­‐and
 the
 methods
 used
 to
 acquire

it-­‐-­‐are
 framed
 within
 the
 structure
 of
 this
 system
 and
 its
 rules.

The
 history
 of
 Arctic
 sovereignty
 and
 the
 Arctic
 foreign
 policy
 of

the
 United
 States,
 Canada
 and
 Russia
 reflect
 these
 transitions

within
 the
 structure
 and
 rules
 of
 the
 international
 system
 as
 their

methods
 for
 pursuing
 national
 interests
 adjusted
 to
 the
 new

expectations
 in
 each
 period.
 The
 current
 foreign
 policy
 of
 these

three
 states
 is
 formulated
 to
 address
 their
 national
 interests

within
 the
 contemporary
 system,
 and
 beyond
 domestic
 policy,

international
 governance
 structures
 are
 setting
 precedence
 for
 the

manner
 in
 which
 the
 Arctic
 states
 desire
 the
 region
 to
 be
 situated

within
 the
 international
 system
 going
 forward.
 For
 affairs
 that

3
 The
 use
 concept
 of
 ‘rules’
 is
 developed
 in
 Chapter
 1.

  8
extend
 beyond
 their
 areas
 of
 legal
 jurisdiction,
 the
 Arctic
 states
 are

establishing
 mechanisms
 of
 governance
 to
 pursue
 their
 national

interests
 in
 areas
 that
 lie
 beyond
 their
 sovereign
 jurisdiction
 and

to
 mitigate
 competition
 from
 non-­‐Arctic
 states.

Background

 The
 establishment
 of
 Arctic
 sovereignty
 amongst
 the
 littoral

states
 is
 a
 matter
 of
 present
 interest
 in
 contemporary

international
 relations.
 The
 world
 has
 anxiously
 watched
 while

states
 make
 statements
 on
 sovereignty
 in
 the
 Arctic,
 issue
 Arctic

foreign
 policy
 documents,
 implement
 existing
 rules
 of

international
 law
 and
 seek
 to
 establish
 new
 cooperative

arrangements
 within
 the
 Arctic
 region.
 However,
 within
 the
 bustle

of
 Arctic
 politics
 there
 is
 confusion
 about
 the
 conflicting
 messages

between
 the
 activities
 of
 states
 that
 seemingly
 do
 not
 align
 with

their
 official
 policy
 statements,
 especially
 as
 states
 make
 claims
 of

adhering
 to
 existing
 principles
 of
 international
 law
 yet
 meanwhile

engaging
 in
 publicity
 stunts
 that
 indicate
 adherence
 to
 practices
 of

a
 bygone
 age.
 Why
 is
 there
 so
 much
 confusion
 over
 what
 rules

apply
 to
 the
 establishment
 of
 sovereignty
 in
 the
 Arctic,
 how
 have

the
 rules
 of
 the
 international
 system
 been
 applied
 to
 date
 and

what
 implications
 do
 this
 combination
 of
 the
 implementation
 of

these
 rules
 with
 the
 interest
 of
 states
 have
 for
 the
 future
 of
 Arctic

international
 relations?

It
 is
 more
 than
 five
 hundred
 years
 since
 the
 territory
 of
 the
 Arctic

was
 first
 divided
 between
 states
 and
 today
 the
 Arctic
 is
 still

undergoing
 sovereignty
 transformations.
 Since
 this
 time,
 the

colours
 of
 the
 political
 map
 have
 changed
 and
 the
 boundary
 lines

on
 maps
 delimiting
 the
 Arctic
 have
 moved
 not
 only
 between
 states

but
 also
 in
 their
 distance
 from
 the
 land
 to
 the
 pole
 as
 the
 region

continues
 to
 be
 restructured
 according
 to
 the
 introduction
 of
 new

  9
codes
 and
 rules
 of
 the
 international
 system.
 The
 topic
 of

sovereignty
 over
 the
 Arctic
 has
 seen
 a
 succession
 of
 waves
 of

historical
 debates
 and
 analysis
 in
 the
 areas
 of
 political,
 legal
 and

security
 studies
 throughout
 these
 transformations,
 each
 wave
 of

interest
 in
 the
 Arctic
 appearing
 to
 focus
 only
 on
 the
 national

interests
 and
 character
 of
 the
 Arctic
 during
 the
 period
 in
 which
 it

was
 generated.
 Yet
 between
 waves,
 the
 character
 of
 the

international
 system
 has
 shifted,
 as
 have
 the
 national
 interests
 and

identities
 of
 the
 Arctic
 states.

The
 first
 wave
 of
 Arctic
 literature,
 produced
 in
 the
 nineteenth

century,
 focused
 on
 the
 travels
 of
 individual
 explorers,
 many
 titled

along
 the
 lines
 of
 'Tales
 of
 Arctic
 Exploration
 and
 Discovery'.
 It

included
 the
 diaries
 and
 accounts
 of
 men
 such
 as
 Franklin,

Frobisher
 and
 Bering,
 among
 many
 others,
 as
 they
 battled
 the

elements
 of
 the
 hostile
 Arctic
 in
 search
 of
 the
 Northwest
 Passage

and
 the
 Northern
 Sea
 Route—with
 a
 shorter
 passage
 from
 Europe

to
 Asia
 being
 the
 holy
 grail
 of
 Arctic
 encounter.
 Tangent
 to
 this

primary
 interest
 were
 the
 benefits
 that
 came
 through
 the

discovery
 of
 virgin
 territory
 and
 previously
 untapped
 economic

resources:
 furs,
 whale
 oil,
 fish
 and
 minerals,
 which
 were
 grossly

exploited
 to
 the
 detriment
 of
 these
 resources.
 In
 order
 to
 secure

these
 resources,
 the
 establishment
 of
 sovereignty
 over
 new

territory
 became
 an
 important
 by-­‐product
 of
 exploration.

Encounter
 with
 the
 Arctic
 by
 the
 states
 of
 the
 international
 system

in
 the
 Age
 of
 Discovery
 clearly
 aligned
 with
 other
 similar

objectives
 of
 exploration
 throughout
 the
 world:
 gold,
 glory
 and
 the

national
 interest.

As
 the
 Age
 of
 Discovery
 ended
 and
 the
 Interwar
 Years
 began,
 the

focus
 of
 the
 second
 wave
 of
 Arctic
 literature
 shifted
 accordingly
 to

accommodate
 the
 new
 concerns
 of
 the
 new
 period
 when
 the
 state

system
 in
 Europe
 was
 consolidating
 formerly
 fragmented
 political

  10