Canada and the United States Ownership of the Arctic Region

Canada and the join States Ownership of the frozen RegionThe arctic portion has been a neglected area for many a(prenominal) years. However with the recent disc everywherey of immanent and mineral resources in the safe, countries such(prenominal) as the get together States, Russia and other European countries have been presenting their keen pursuit in the cold rule. In the article Arctic Meltd avow, written by Scott Borgerson, the author discusses the sparing and the security consequences ca enjoymentd by the Global W arming.Global warming has contributed to the melt of the icecaps this guide to the finding of forty-four billion barrels of natural gun for hire liquids in the frozen area of the Arctic Circle. The discoery has escalated the fight amidst Russia, coupled States, Canada and other European countries over which state legally consume these resources creating the most crucial territorial dispute of the century.The article Arctic Meltd accept, dialog ab aside the political rationalizes caused in the Arctic creating hindrance to the negotiation make amongst countries claiming its possession of the resources. Although the melting of the icecaps presents promising energy markets and the revolution of world(a) conveyance, serious problems such as the possibility of war over the territory in the Arctic region are lively being lose by the U.S. State Department and by the U.S. National Security Council. Since at that place are no legal structures available in responding to the great levels of ice-melting and to an nonionic development of the Arctic region, the territory is as a result in danger of being exploited by some(prenominal) m oney and mightiness hungry countries.This proves that if a powerful verdant such as the coupled States does not step up and address the challenges faces in the Arctic, the issues evident result continue to worsen creating a possibility of a battle between nations in rely to surmount the abundant amo unt of resources available. This essay ordain employ the conceptual models of global political sympathies such as realness and hard mutuality in understanding different dimensions evident to the current situation in the Arctic. Hence pass on examine on how the Canadian and U.S. governments should approach the issue.Overview of the situation in the Arctic regionThe melting of the icecap has sparked pre-existing issues relating to the land claims half-bakede by Russia, U.S and other countries in Europe, intriguing Canadas Arctic main(a)ty because of the increase following of outside states of the resource available in the region. Ice caps in the Arctic are melting as a result more natural resources and minerals are being found. This has allowed a creation of shorter shipping routes that could potentially save billions of dollars each year for shipping companies.According to an estimate conducted by the U.S. geological survey and Statoil-Hydro of Norway, the Arctic carries ab out one quarter of the worlds remaining and undiscovered oil and gas sediments.Countries battle over the territory for the apprehension that it can economically prosper a country as a result increasing the states political influence and authority. This desire to attain power is embedded in every state, which is why tension is ignited amongst countries longing to achieve rights of the Arctic.U.S and Canada relations in the ArcticCanada and the linked States relationship have shown some frustration in pursuing its own interest in the Arctic. Both states display enthusiasm on the blood line of the resources and expansion of a strategic multitude region in the Arctic.Such forwardness has raised a major number of issues such as the control over marine transportation in the Northwest Passage and the boss around of pollution problems. The predicament roots back in 1969 and 1970, when the use of the voyages S.S Manhattan, a U.S. tanker and C.G.S. Polar Sea, a U.S. icebreaker motivate d the issue of Canadas sovereign control over its Arctic region that stimulated a study nationally.The dispute over Canadian sovereignty of the Arctic waters led to the enactment of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act that allows Canada to check over pollution inside a 100 mile zone. In 1970, the unhappy linked States responds back stating that accepting the act would jeopardize the liberty of navigation congenital for United States activities worldwide.However in 1988, Canada and the United States signed an system on Arctic Co-operation, that allowed the U.S. icebreakers to voyage through the Arctic with some limitations and consent obtained from the Canadian government.The claim of territory in the Arctic by several countries has challenged Canadas sovereignty over the Arctic. In attempt to over arrest the challenges, Canada dedicated 51 million dollars to supporter classify and map the border of its continental shelf in the Arctic to coincide upon the jurisdictio ns laid out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea also known as UNCLOS.The UNCLOS is an administration of faithfulness and command that regulates the worlds oceans and seas by setting up rules governing uses of all oceans and its resources.Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 the United States on the other glove has not approved the UNCLOS even though the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations voted in 2004 advocating the ratification.To tackle the current crisis in the Arctic territory, it is essential for United States to come up with an arrangement with Canada to military service prevent the escalation of conflicts regarding the sea-water lines and its resources.Borgenson states in the article the Arctic Meltdown, that the decisions make by the Arctic powers in the coming years go out therefore profoundly shape the future of the region for decades. He believes that without the U.S. alive(p) in the decision making to find solutions for the claims made by the Arctic powers . Borgenson indicates that without the U.Ss leadership in this matter, the region could erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources.Realist possible action approaches to the conflictPolitical realists in world(prenominal) authorities strive to obtain power through the use of violence.They believe that end-to-end 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 use of force is effective to obtain power as proven end-to-end the past historic wars 3) and suppose that power structure 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 is why defend nations own interest is greatly valued because of the mistrust of agreement between other states or actors. Most import antly, the main objective of realism is to obtain power mostly through the use of military and economic means. To analyse the situation in the Arctic, it is essential to connect some of the distinctive of realism with the issue.In some parts, characteristics of realism can be close related to the relationship of United States and Canada with the issue revolving around the Arctic. Canada claims sovereignty over the Arctic because of geographical and historical reasons to it. The United States searches to find a reason of somehow that the country has rights over the Arctic and its resources. Both states display their own interests in the region suggests characteristics of realism.Complex Interdependence approaches to the conflictComplex mutuality is a theory used in international politics that speech pattern on the idea of economic independence. The theory includes three central characteristics. Firstly, the habit of multiple channels is strongly significant for the fact that it j oins societies in transnational, interstate highway and trans-governmental affairs. Secondly, in interlocking interdependence theory, hierarchy is absent in which military security is least considered therefore does not dictate the agenda.The absence of hierarchy allows for the concentration of other issues pertaining to domestic policy. Lastly, the use of military force is not present between government to government conflicts.Military force in complex interdependence can be extraneous on working out on disputes on economic matters amid affiliates of an 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 instance, countries interested in the Arctic only display interest to a country or region if the state benefits from it. In this case, United States demonstrates their interest in the Arctic region because of t he mass amount of natural resources the region carries. By protecting their interests, United States 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 look for ships intruding in its waters. another(prenominal) reason why complex interdependence theory can be closely applied with this situation is because of approaches Canada and the United States are taking to help reach a decision. The U.S.-Canada Arctic Policy was an attempt to join interests in the two countries over the Arctic.Although no negotiations were made among the two states, both states made an effort to approach the issue without threatening to use military force. conflicting realism, complex interdependence theory places an importance on the roles of International Organizations in state to state conflicts. The situation over the control of the Arctic region closely relat es 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 United States may consider is ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea along with other negotiations protecting interests of both countries. The unification of both countries on the issue 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 the United States will have to set aside their differences and reach to a decision cartel interests from both of the states to prevent further conflicts. One way of achieving solution to this issue is by taking realistic legal measures such as codifying an agreement, law or settlement. This can only be successfully established if Canada and the United States join their self-interests of the Arctic by ap plying theories placed in the conceptual model, complex interdependence, to help maximize opportunities made available in the region.