Talk:Territorial claims in the Arctic

message: This page and most others dealing with the EEZ confuse miles and nautical miles, and give incorrect metric equivalents. 24.86.206.202 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miles/Kilometres/Nautical Miles

message: "Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed".  An interesting and related article. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is found here Arktika 2007--204.117.78.97 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian flag

message: Why does the author say the nations do not "own" the territory, but "claim" it?  What is the difference?  If one has exclusive rights over a territory (aside from navigation), doesn't one effectively "own" it?  Needs clarification.--68.44.91.155
   
:Because when someone says they own it, but someone disagrees, then it would be a claim. They can only claim something that no where in documentation officially states is theirs. There is still dispute over who actually owns what, thus countries are making claims that they own it, and most likely the UN will have to sort it out.--204.117.78.97 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dominant "claims" made in the Arctic are those to "extended continental shelves."  The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides for states to claim extended continental shelves beyond their Exclusive Economic Zones (200nm).  State have ten years after their ratification of the UNCLOS to make such claims to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS). Such claims must be accompanied by scientific data showing the geological foundation for such claims. If the UNCLCS validates the scientific basis and if more than one state makes duplicate or overlapping claims, the resolution is to be achieved by appropriate bilateral or multilateral diplomatic negotiations. Once negotiated, claims to extended continental shelves give the claimant state rights to the exploitation of resources on or beneath the seabed within the claimed area.Moryak (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim vs. own?

message: Can someone explain why any of these countries would want to extend their territorial claims? My first thought comes to oil, but shipping routes, or pride, come to mind... --24.86.206.202
:Because of Global Warming the ice is receding, leaving more sea open, making it further accessible to drill for oil in the arctic. While this is more of a thing for Canada and Russia, the United States still claims that all the ice/water is international waters so anyone can pass a ship through it.--204.117.78.97 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make sure that this discussion is clear for all readers, let's recap the facts:
*Within 12 nautical miles of territorial baselines waters are considered sovereign territory (territorial waters) under the complete control (navigation and resource exploitation) of the littoral state.
*Within a littoral state's Exclusive Economic Zone, lying within 200 nautical miles from the baseline but beyond the 12-mile territorial waters, the littoral state has sole rights to the exploitation of resources below, on, and above the seabed. It can also regulate scientific research but cannot infringe on the freedom of navigation of all states,
*The special considerations arising from claims to extended continental shelves beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone are explained above.Moryak (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Why extend territorial claims?

message: I think that it would be appropriate to merge Sovereignty claims in the Arctic into this article. The latter article was created on August 7, and is only a stub, so merging should be of little work.  It would just take some restructuring of the article in terms of the section headings. It would help expand this article as well, as it seems to focus mainly on the North pole and the immediate region around it. Any objections? -- Reaper  X 04:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with merging. --A. B. (talk)  22:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Sovereignty claims in the Arctic

message: From CBC:
-64.180.77.158 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Arctic map puts focus on 'areas of uncertainty' 

message: The information about Sector Theory is wrong and misleading.  First, Canada initially proclaimed Sector Theory in 1907 when Sector Pascal Poirier stated it before the Canadian Senate.
See Killaby, pg 34. block quote, bottom left corner
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-01-eng.pdf
Also Canada abandoned sector theory in 1986 and currenlty uses straight baselines around the archipelago.  (this is the same problem I've discussed on the Canada wikipage for posting an incorrect map based on sector theory)
Although not very detailed, for simplicity see: Killaby, end of 35-36.
Canada does not claim ownership of the North Pole, and Minister McKay's comments reflect a general representation that most Canadians simply do not know the extent of our sovereignty in the North. 
If you any help or sources, let me know and I'll be glad to assist.
Yikes, the section on "National Sectors" needs a serious rewrite as it is extremely outdated.  Canada has not relied upon sector theory since adopting straight baselines around the archipelago in 1984-5. If fact, this whole page needs a thorough rewrite and is in bad need of a subject expert as it demonstrates a poor grasp of the issues and is factually incorrect or extremely vague in several places.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sector Theory 

message: If the title of the Page is territorial claims in the Arctic it should not discuss MARITIME matters like the NWP and the Beaufort sea.  Maybe another page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.94.14.128 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also.... 

message: NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: As I understand, the North pole could declare itself as a sovereign country. This as it houses several indiginous peoples, see http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/faq.html#8 , http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Start_Your_Own_Country_(TV_series) This would eliminate the claiming of land by colonist nations.
81.243.185.133 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mixing up the Arctic with the North Pole. People live in the Arctic but nobody lives at the North Pole. The closest anyone lives to the NP is at Alert, Nunavut/CFS Alert, which has a permanent population of 5 (2006), and is 817 km (508 mi) away. There are other problems with your suggestion, however, this is not the place to discuss the idea of the NP becoming a separate country. something lame from CBW 17:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: North pole as a country

message: The Beaufort Sea section is kinda sloppy. For example: "No settlement has been reached to date, because the US has signed but has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"  
In fact this dispute has little to do about LOS and is related to an 1825 Treaty between Russia and Britain over their borders.  The treaty says the border should carry along the 141 meridian "as far as the frozen ocean".  Canada argues the boundary should continue along the 141 meridian, whereas the US says it should be equal distance at the coastline  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.4 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beaufort Sea 

message: The premise of this page is extremely confusing. As another poster commented, there are no territorial disputes or claims in the Arctic, they are all maritime.  Look at the way this article is written, it talks about all these Arctic maritime issues under the interpretation of the Law of the Sea, then it has a sub-heading that lists all the territory in the Arctic, none of which is disputed.  There's a serious connection/congruency issue here!
A major rewrite is needed here!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Issues with Page 

message: An interesting minor edit difference recently took place over a quote by Stephen Harper:
On September 25, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "President Putin assured me that he meant no offense..."
Source:
*
This poses a fascinating, yet very minor, difference between Canada and the United States. The quote comes from the New York based Council on Foreign Relations. For them to spell "defense" with an 's' is correct for them. If Harper spoke these words rather than published them in print, it is perfectly understandable why the quote uses the American "s" rather than the Canadian "c". If Harper had published his defence of Putin as a news release then it would be an editorial issue the New York based group would have to face. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is a direct quote it should be cited exactly as written, even if it is a spelling error. Another option is to rewrite the section using the source without quoting directly, thus avoiding the misspelling. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

text: It makes sense I suppose, to use Canadian spelling when quoting a Canadian Prime Minister if we have sources that use this. CMD (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offence or Offense 

message: A map showing the national sectors of EEZ (200nm) and maximum possible extend of continental shelfs (350nm). Anybody found such a free map? Japinderum (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Map request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808005847/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2007.pdf to http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070613215643/http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/download?id=35 to http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/download?id=35
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070730035434/http://www.carc.org/whatsnew/writings/amitchell.html to http://www.carc.org/whatsnew/writings/amitchell.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525085551/http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11861523 to http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11861523
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070828053101/http://topics.nytimes.com:80/top/news/science/series/thebigmelt/ to http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/series/thebigmelt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109190231/http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/arctic.pdf to http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/arctic.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001232453/http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/aborig/arctic_reloc.htm to http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/aborig/arctic_reloc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930221420/http://www.geo.su.se/geology/marin-geovetenskap-projekt/lomrog-2007 to http://www.geo.su.se/geology/marin-geovetenskap-projekt/lomrog-2007
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/ConferenceInIlulissatGreenlandLandmarkPoliticalDeclarationOnTheFutureOfTheArctic.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020131061534/http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml to http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified