Vanguard Magazine

a arctIc www.vanguardcanada.com DECEMBER 2016/JANUARY 2017 29 objectives. Although these two elements were staples of traditional thinkers like Mahan and Corbett, the methods and objectives of attaining maritime influence have changed significantly. In particular, the establishment of the 1982 United Na- tions Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has expanded maritime pow- er into the legal realm, resulting in new sea power inputs and outputs. It is within the context of UNCLOS that, I argue, Canadians ports will have a dramatic abil- ity to further Canadian political objectives in the High North. One of the most contentious (certain- ly, the most headline-leading) issues in the Arctic is that of resource ownership between the five Arctic coastal states – Canada, the United States, Russia, Nor- way, and Denmark/Greenland. This issue concerns the UNCLOS clause that grants coastal states legal extractive rights to seabed resources (such as oil and gas) on the extended continental shelf outside of the country's 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This right hinges upon two elements. Firstly, that the state can scientifically prove the area in ques- tion is a natural geological part of its own continental shelf and, secondly, that this extended portion does not overlap with a neighbouring state's own extended conti- nental shelf. Should there be any overlap, the states will have to come to either a mutually-negotiated settlement or submit the contestation to third-party or UN ar- bitration. It is this second option where port in- frastructure in the North can play a ma- jor role in supporting a Canadian claim to a contested extended continental shelf. Most Arctic scholars are of the view that this contestation will not be solved via military confrontation. Instead, the his- torically peaceful approach to Arctic co- operation will continue to play out re- gardless of conflicts between the parties in other parts of the world. Within this framework, a third-party arbitrator will look at a number of factors in deciding which state has the better claim of author- ity. The very limited number of cases thus far involving arbitration of continental- shelf delimitation makes it difficult to fore- see what factors will be examined. How- ever, the uniquely harsh conditions of the Arctic may well see the consideration of factors such as the ability of the state to respond to maritime security emergen- cies in the area. Therefore, the output of sea power that needs to be developed is that of responsible custodianship in the form of robust emergency response and management, rather than coercive might. Accordingly, the relevant sea power input Ports have acquired functions beyond serving as bases for naval forces and for enabling the transfer of goods between ship and land

• Cover