Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conflict Analysis
Arctic Sovereignty
Using the Hans Island Dispute as a Diplomatic
Laboratory
Michael Mitchell, OMM, CD
September 3, 2014
Executive Summary
The Canadian Arctic Archipelago consists of more than 36,000 islands. The only
island in this group over which sovereignty is currently contested is Hans Island,
which lies midway between Canada and Greenland (Denmark). Since the 1970s
Canada and Denmark have not been able to reach an accord as to how title to
this uninhabited rock should be decided.
As ice packs recede, the extent of the continental shelves of nations bordering
the Arctic is becoming more defined. This situation is prompting a reappraisal of
the delineation of national borders, and raising questions regarding how national
sovereignty over land, water, and airspace is to be determined.
The increasing navigability of Arctic waterways is prompting a marked rise in
global political and corporate interest in exploiting this transportation route, as
well as the oil, gas, and other resource wealth in the region. Some uncertainty
exists as to who can take advantage of these opportunities, and what regulations
come into play.
The Hans Island territorial dispute may provide a test case opportunity that can
be used to not only resolve this single issue, but also provide a model with which
some potential future claims may be settled.
Introduction
This paper introduces a proposed resolution to the ongoing dilemma of the
determination of sovereignty over Hans Island, a small, yet potentially significant
geographic feature located in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. A contextual
outline of the situation is followed by a conflict analysis, and intervention
proposals. It is this authors view that the cornerstone of a resolution to this
problem lies in a belief, brought forward by Mayer (2012), that a deeper
understanding of the identity issues, rather than negotiated agreements based
on identified interests (p. 175) defines the preferred course of action. Successful
outcomes resulting from this problem-solving approach might provide a model by
which comparable future territorial disputes could be addressed in a collaborative
and transparent manner (Folger et al., 2013).
diplomatic and legal quibbling, has created disharmony between two otherwise
friendly nations (Huebert, 2005). However, by Colemans (2003) definition, the
otherwise stable and friendly relationship that exists between the two countries
characterizes this as a tractable, albeit protracted conflict.
A central issue in this conflict involves the disagreement between Canada
and Denmark (the Primary parties in this conflict) on which country has
sovereignty over Hans Island. In 1973, when both countries were drawing their
maritime boundaries, it was discovered that Hans Island fell almost exactly on
the demarcation line between both countries. Rather than delay the progress of
the survey, a demarcation line was drawn up to one end of the island and
continued from the opposite end, with the understanding that title to the island
would be determined at some future date (Byers, 2014; UNLT, 2002). Galtung
(1990) warned that the act of conflict avoidance is akin to orchestrated
confrontation (p. 293), a non-kinetic, but nonetheless tangible style of conflict.
Poole, and Stutman (2013) contended parties, that adopt an avoiding style, risk
fomenting apathy or isolation.
The presence of aboriginal peoples in the region, dating from a time
before recorded history, establishes the origins of a cultural identity element to
this issue (Dufresne, 2007). On a more contemporary note, the concept of
sovereignty plays a significant role in modern nationalistic perceptions of identity
on the part of both Primary parties, as explored by Kriesberg (2003).
The rhetoric related to assertions of sovereignty emanating from both
countries has been manifestly partisan. Following a visit to the island in 2005 by
Canadas foreign affairs minister, the head of the department of International
Public Law at Denmark's Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying, "We consider
Hans Island to be part of Danish territory and will therefore hand over a complaint
about the Canadian minister's unannounced visit" (BBC, 2005). Canadas
position with regard to the importance of the Arctic to Canada and its people is
just as pointedly reflected in policy documents, and even public opinion polls.
Canadas Northern Strategy: Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future (GoC, 2009),
the federal governments principal Arctic policy document, begins with the
assertion: Canada is a Northern nation. The North is a fundamental part of our
heritage and our national identity, and it is vital to our future (p. 3). A public
opinion poll of almost 3,000 Canadians showed that they considered the Arctic to
be a cornerstone of national identity and our foremost foreign policy priority
(EKOS, 2011). It may be unwise to ignore this human value for, as Kriesberg
(2003) asserted, to do so could impel a devolution from a tractable to an
intractable state. The basic, enduring characteristic of national identity raises this
component from a simple interest to a need in this case (Mayer, 2012).
Aside from the structural (legal, geographic) and cultural (nationalistic,
historic) issues, there is another, yet to be fully evaluated, economic interest at
stake. As the Arctic sea ice diminishes, waterways become more navigable, and
resources become more readily exploitable. Consequently, interest is growing to
capitalize on the natural resources that lie beneath the waters of all Arctic regions
(Huebert, 2005). If the seabed surrounding Hans Island is determined to have
resource value, any derived largesse will benefit whoever holds title to the island
(Byers, 2013).
Secondary Parties
In addition to the usual international players, such as the United Nations
and NATO, who could play a part in negotiations related to this issue, there are a
host of other organizations with special interests in the region including the
International Arctic Science Committee, and even the Association of World
Reindeer Herders (Lytvynenko, 2011). But perhaps the most significant player is
the Arctic Council, a forum consisting of the eight circumpolar nations (Canada,
Denmark, Iceland, USA, Russia, Finland, Norway and Sweden) as well as many
observer nations including China and Germany. The Arctic Council is a
collaborative, cooperative, and forward-thinking body that has a track record of
arriving at rational solutions to concerns pertaining to the Arctic (Stevenson,
2007; Byers, 2014). This organization has the potential to provide a neutral,
trusted, and sustainable open line of communication between all parties which
many scholars, including Fisher (1994), Rothman (1997), and Maiese (2003)
consider essential to resolving conflict.
Claims to sovereignty in the Arctic Archipelago have come under
increasing scrutiny and dispute (Byers, 2014). As reported by Godoy (2011), a
spokesperson from Pierre and Marie Curie University stated, Our main concern
is the regulation of potential economic activities in the Arctic and the identification
of Arctic governance options for European countries (para. 13). This statement
reflects the desire of other states to assert their presence in the Arctic region.
This should be a signal to Canada and Denmark that it would be prudent to
establish precedence for resolving a bi-lateral territorial claim in the Arctic before
other nations or organizations are able to impose their will in the region by other
means. As diminishing icepacks expose feasibly navigable sea-lanes, not to
mention increasingly large, and previously uncharted tracts of land and seabed,
questions arise regarding the demarcation of national boundaries and authority
over waterways (Baker & Byers, 2012).
Folger et al. (2013) provided a useful tool, in the form of a decision tree, to
select the optimal procedure to engage the two primary parties (Canada and
Denmark). By determining the relative weight given to the five characteristics
noted along the top of the decision tree (see Figure 5), it is evident that the
problem-solving conflict style is the tactic of choice. However, the pairing of
problem-solving with another supportive style, like collaboration, may reinforce
the undertaking. This pairing may enhance the resolution process, as
collaboration is proven to be effective when the focus is on interests and issues,
as is the case here (Folger et al., 2013).
References
Baker, J.S., & Byers, M. (2012). Crossed lines: The curious case of the Beaufort
Sea maritime boundary dispute. Ocean Development & International Law
(43)1. DOI:10.1080/00908320.2012.647509
BBC News Service. (2005). Canada island visit angers Danes. BBC online news,
25 July 2005. Retrieved from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4715245.stm
Byers, M. (2013). International law and the arctic. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Byers, M. (2014). Creative thinking on sovereignty. Policy Options, 35, 6-7.
Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docvie
w/1509434042?accountid=8056
Canadiangeographic.ca (2005). Whose Hans? Retrieved from:
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/hansIsland/default.asp
Coleman, P.T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Towards
the development of a metaframeworkI. Peace and Conflict: Journal of
Peace Psychology, 9(1), 1-37.
Dufresne, R. (2007). Canadas Legal Claims Over Arctic Territory and Waters.
Library of Parliament PRB 07-39E. Retrieved from:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP /ResearchPublications/prb0739-e.pdf
EKOS Research Associates Inc. (2011). Rethinking the top of the world: Arctic
security public opinion survey. Final report produced for Munk School of
Global Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/201101-25ArcticSecurityReport.pdf
Fisher, R.J. (1994). Generic Principles for Resolving Intergroup Conflict. Journal
of Social Issues, 50(1), 47-66.
Fisher, R.J. (1997). Chapter 7: Third Party Consultation, in Interactive Conflict
Resolution (pp. 142-162). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Fisher, R.J. (2007). Ch. 6: Interactive Conflict Resolution, in I.W. Zartman (ed.),
Peacemaking in International Conflict (pp. 227-272), Washington, DC:
United States Institute of Peace.
Fisher, R.J. & Kelman, H.C. (2011). Perceptions in conflict. In D. Bar-Tal (ed.),
Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution: Social Psychological
Perspectives, Chapter 2. (pp. 61-81). London, UK: Psychology Press.
Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., & Stutman, R.K. (2013). Chapter 4: Conflict Styles and
Strategic Conflict Interaction. In Working Through Conflict: Strategies for
Relationships, Groups, and Organizations (7th ed., pp. 108-138). Boston:
Pearson Education.
Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research. 27(3): 291-305
Godoy, J. (2011). Arctic melt stirs economic ambitions. Tierramerica. Inter Press
Service, Berlin, 27 September 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2011/09/27/11329
Government of Canada (GoC). (2009). Canadas Northern strategy: Our North,
our heritage, our future. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
10