jbg Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 No, "international" has more to do with how much international shipping traffic occurs in such a "narrow" channel. Special challenges have been settled by specific treaty (e.g. Montreaux Convention - 1936). Accordingly, if international shipping via a NW Passage becomes more common, Canada can only regulate the inevitable (for nav aids, pollution, security, etc.) as the ships transit.I researched the question further. The correct answer is three miles (link). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) I researched the question further. The correct answer is three miles (link). The correct answer to what question? Territorial limit? Channel passage? Recognized/observed Law of the Sea territorial limit is up to 12 nautical miles. Edited October 14, 2007 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 14, 2007 Report Share Posted October 14, 2007 I researched the question further. The correct answer is three miles (link). According to UN convention on the Law of the Sea, wich seems to be the acceptable standard (more or less) the are considered territorial water is 12nm, as BC2004 has said. UNCLOS The Parry Channel, If google earth is any good, exceeds 24nm in with for the most part, except for a short part near the west of the Eastern Exit near King Williams land [??], So the channel would constitute insternational waters if that was all there is to it. Part III article 30something of UNCLOS however describes how an archipeligo, if there are no other national claims within the boundry of that archipelago, can be considered territorial waters in its entirety . Another article also states that other nations have the right of Innocent Passage within such an archipeligo unless there is another route that passes outside of the archipelego. Even with global warming I doubt a Polar route would be a viable thing. USCG vessels transiting from Alaska to Norfolk certainly qualify as innocent passage. Canada claims the US government must seek our permission for passage to occur wich is contrary to innocent passage rights. Naturally the US informs but does not seek permission to use the passage - as is thier right in the circumstances. Canada acquieses, of course, since they haven't got a legal leg to stand on. But it makes for good political hay. and probably garners more than a few anti-american votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 15, 2007 Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 (edited) The correct answer to what question? Territorial limit? Channel passage?Recognized/observed Law of the Sea territorial limit is up to 12 nautical miles. Territorial limit. The U.S. is not a party to LOST. I hope it never will be. Edited October 15, 2007 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dithers Posted October 15, 2007 Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 Like a few of you already mentioned, I don't believe this issue to really egenrate much strife between the U.S and Canada. If it becoimes truly viable for regular shipping, then I can't imagine Canada stonewall. We'll break out the flags for a day and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 15, 2007 Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 Like a few of you already mentioned, I don't believe this issue to really egenrate much strife between the U.S and Canada. If it becoimes truly viable for regular shipping, then I can't imagine Canada stonewall. We'll break out the flags for a day and move on. So you don't see the sewing of roadside bombs and the use of suicide bombers and incitement of riots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted October 15, 2007 Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 So you don't see the sewing of roadside bombs and the use of suicide bombers and incitement of riots? Nah lets just go to war. Because hell we have gone to war over less before!!! /endtroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agaric Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 Hope not but it would be a bummer if we had to pull our people out of Afghanistan to deal with matters closer to home. Are you joking? *L* We shouldnt be in Afghanistan at all, have our troops here if we need them, we should be protecting Canada first, not the U.S. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 Are you joking? *L*We shouldnt be in Afghanistan at all, have our troops here if we need them, we should be protecting Canada first, not the U.S. ... Are we expecting an invasion of seal pups? Moose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 Are you joking? *L*We shouldnt be in Afghanistan at all, have our troops here if we need them, we should be protecting Canada first, not the U.S. ... Mostly but not entirely. It may come about that we will need to show a stronger military presence in the arctic to protect our interests and that might affect our involvement in Afghanistan. Pure conjecture on my part. While I don't think our commitment to the Kandahar region should be open ended, I do think we should be in Afghanistan. If you want to be an influence in the world and have people take you seriously, you have to walk the walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agaric Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 Mostly but not entirely. It may come about that we will need to show a stronger military presence in the arctic to protect our interests and that might affect our involvement in Afghanistan. Pure conjecture on my part.While I don't think our commitment to the Kandahar region should be open ended, I do think we should be in Afghanistan. If you want to be an influence in the world and have people take you seriously, you have to walk the walk. So if the rest of the world fears bullies then we should be a bully? I dont buy that at all ... We have trade as our hands to play, if the u.s. doesnt respect us lets shut off power to them and see what happens ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 We have trade as our hands to play, if the u.s. doesnt respect us lets shut off power to them and see what happens ... Sorry dont want to go broke. Perhaps a look at our trade w the US can cure you of your folly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 We have trade as our hands to play, if the u.s. doesnt respect us lets shut off power to them and see what happens ... ...Canada will revert to the Middle Ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agaric Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 ...Canada will revert to the Middle Ages. That was in response to the idea that we have to be like the u.s. if we want them to respect us, I say we should be better then being the world bully and we already are, if the u.s. wants to try to screw us over for something then we can shut off the electricity until we have justice, they arent going to invade us, the world would flip out of they did and besides yanks make decisions based solely on money, if it would save them money to settle the dispute they will but if we do nothing they have no ethics so they will cut our throats if we let them ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 That was in response to the idea that we have to be like the u.s. if we want them to respect us, I say we should be better then being the world bully and we already are, if the u.s. wants to try to screw us over for something then we can shut off the electricity until we have justice, they arent going to invade us, the world would flip out of they did and besides yanks make decisions based solely on money, if it would save them money to settle the dispute they will but if we do nothing they have no ethics so they will cut our throats if we let them ... Uh....no. They have ten times everything on us, including the ability to wait it out while we go broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 Uh....no.They have ten times everything on us, including the ability to wait it out while we go broke. No question the US would hurt if all trade between us was stopped. But we would be ground into dust. And the US would sail through the Northwest Passage unimpeded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agaric Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) Thats right, we have no cards to hold, we should just hand our rights over to the u.s., resistance is futile, we will be assimilated ... I think you've been listening to Harper too much ... The u.s. has more money then us but we have more natural resources then they do, including water and minerals and OIL! We already supply a lot of different things they NEED, the ONLY thing we lack is an leader thats not willing to sell us out, apparently some Canadians share Harpers wish to sell out Canada .. Please stop with the "Oh we cant do anything about it" crap, its not realistic, its defeatist and Canada is better than that ... Edited October 18, 2007 by Agaric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) Your leaps of logic are your downfall. Thats right, we have no cards to hold, we should just hand our rights over to the u.s., resistance is futile, we will be assimilated ... Funny, I dont see where anyone advocates handing our rights to the US. We sell to them . I think you've been listening to Harper too much ... Harper has nothing to do with this. Frankly, and keep in mind I lean more liberal than con, is that I would, based on what I have seen, rather have Harper negotiating than Chretien and good lord way ahead of Stephane Dion.(US Trade Rep- What did he say? I dunno) The u.s. has more money then us but we have more natural resources then they do, including water and minerals and OIL! We already supply a lot of different things they NEED, the ONLY thing we lack is an leader thats not willing to sell us out, apparently some Canadians share Harpers wish to sell out Canada .. Wonderful, you be my guest and eat the minerals and the oil , and wash it down with some of that water. You will have to since all veggies will have stopped flowing north from oh about the end of OCT 'til next June. Mom....more Iron Ore tonight? Why cant we have nickel instead. Please stop with the "Oh we cant do anything about it" crap, its not realistic, its defeatist and Canada is better than that ... There is that leap of logic again. There is plenty we can do when we need to. But one of those things we dont do is go around slagging the very people we sell too . Fire and brimstone will only get you.........er...fire and brimstone. I think they have more fo both. Edited October 18, 2007 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 .....they arent going to invade us, the world would flip out of they did and besides yanks make decisions based solely on money, if it would save them money to settle the dispute they will but if we do nothing they have no ethics so they will cut our throats if we let them ... Sure...the US is saving all kinds of money in Iraq and Afghanistan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 So if the rest of the world fears bullies then we should be a bully?I dont buy that at all ... We have trade as our hands to play, if the u.s. doesnt respect us lets shut off power to them and see what happens ... No, but if you aren't prepared to stick up for yourself or the things you believe are important, why would anyone respect or help you? It's easier to come to a equitable solution with reasonable people if they understand that you are serious. As far as shutting off their power is concerned, the situation would have to be just short of war to warrant going that far. I think we both understand that neither of us has anything to gain from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agaric Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Sure...the US is saving all kinds of money in Iraq and Afghanistan! Why not take a closer look, Bushs cronies are making a killing in Iraq (pun intended), while americans butcher innocent Iraqis all the companies being handed contracts there are making BILLIONS ! Iraq For Sale - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Why not take a closer look, Bushs cronies are making a killing in Iraq (pun intended), while americans butcher innocent Iraqis all the companies being handed contracts there are making BILLIONS ! Oh..you mean like those Canadian oil services contractors at Himrin Field outside Kirkuk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agaric Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 No, but if you aren't prepared to stick up for yourself or the things you believe are important, why would anyone respect or help you? It's easier to come to a equitable solution with reasonable people if they understand that you are serious. ABSOLUTELY ! Thats why we need to tell the u.s. to piss off from time to time, for example the soft wood lumber issue, we should have had a government willing to shut off the electricity to the u.s. until they paid their bill, ESPECIALLY after the court decided in our favour TWICE ! As far as shutting off their power is concerned, the situation would have to be just short of war to warrant going that far. I think we both understand that neither of us has anything to gain from that. Well it would never get that far, but if we started threatening it the u.s. would have paid up, they had more to lose if they didnt pay us ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Well it would never get that far, but if we started threatening it the u.s. would have paid up, they had more to lose if they didnt pay us ... Ooooo so scary....we be quakin' in our boots! Please start threatening the USA at once.....I hear Jay Leno needs more monologue laughs like softwood lumber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agaric Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Oh..you mean like those Canadian oil services contractors at Himrin Field outside Kirkuk? Id like to read more about that, It was Bush admin policy NOT to reward contracts to ppl that didnt support their Iraq invasion and we didnt so I would like to see how we are connected there .... If we are then we are WRONG for being there but all of this takes a back seat to the fact that Iraq wasent involved in 911 and the whole thing was cooked up for oil, human life has no meaning to the Bush admin, hell, they have no problem in arresting, holding, torturing, murdering, spying etc and the smokescreen of security really has americans willing to give up their ever right ... Does anyone here think the Iraqi deaths are making you safer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.