Press "Enter" to skip to content

Proposed Canadian regulations on passage through arctic waters

Canada is planning to apply mandatory new rules to certain vessels passing through arctic waters to the north of the country.  According to the press release issued by the Canadian government:

The proposed regulations would require vessels to report information such as identity and intended route before entering, while operating within and when leaving Canada’s northern waters. By identifying and monitoring vessels, the Canadian Coast Guard would be able to provide vessel traffic services to help prevent pollution and better coordinate both pollution response and search and rescue.

The regulations will replace the voluntary system of ship reporting that is currently in operation in the region.  It would seem that the proposed Canadian regulations would prohibit ships from sailing through the arctic waters without first reporting to the Canadian authorities.  The regulatory impact analysis statement on the proposed regulations explain:

Once a VTS zone is established under the [Canada Shipping Act 2001], vessels of a prescribed class must obtain clearance from an MCTS officer before entering that VTS zone.

As always when it comes to maritime claims over coastal waters, one of the most controversial aspects of the regulations concerns their enforcement. On this issue, the regulatory impact analysis statement says:

In a case of non-compliance, the vessel would be contacted to require that it comply with the Regulations. Where necessary, enforcement action may include follow-up communications with the flag state of a foreign vessel, notification through Port State Control procedures, and possible prosecution in accordance with the CSA 2001 and consistent with international law.

This would seem to suggest that ships will not necessarily be stopped whilst navigating through the area if they fail to comply with the regulations.  It is more likely that enforcement action will only be taken if a ship voluntarily enters a Canadian port (see Article 220(1) of the Law of the Sea Convention) or by requesting enforcement action to be taken by the flag state (Article 217(6) and (7) of the Law of the Sea Convention).
Nevertheless, the proposed regulations remain controversial because of the contested status of the waters.  
The area is particularly sensitive because of the existence of the Northwest passage, which, due to declines in sea ice, has opened up to international shipping.  Some countries, such as the United States, argue that the Northwest Passage is an international strait and as such it is subject to the regime of transit passage in Part III of the Law of the Sea Convention which strictly limits the legislative and enforcement jurisdiction of coastal states.  Canada, on the other hand, claims that the waters are either internal waters or territorial waters.  For a summary of the relevant arguments, see J. Kraska, “The Law of the Sea Convention and the Northwest Passage’ (2007) 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 257.
Another complicating factor is the existence of Article 234 of the Law of the Sea Convention which provides:

Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence.

Article 234 confers a broad power on coastal states to unilaterally impose pollution standards on shipping in ice-covered areas.  However, the language of this provision is ambiguous as to whether it only applies to the exclusive economic zone of coastal states or whether it also applies to all other maritime zones “within the limits of the exclusive economic zone.”  In their commentary to the Convention, Nordquist and his co-authors argued that it can be taken to refer to “that part of the sea extending from the outer limits of the coastal state’s exclusive economic zone to that state’s coastline.” (See Commentary to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Volume IV (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991) at 397)  If this is the correct interpretation, it can be asked what are the implications are for the rights of ships to transit passage in international straits which pass through ice-covered areas.  It could be argued that Article 234 is lex specialis and therefore coastal states are not subject to the limitations on their legislative jurisdiction that would normally apply to the regulation of shipping in international straits and they can unilaterally set standards for the prevention of pollution from ships provided they are non-discriminatory and they have “due regard” to navigation.
The dispute over the status of the Northwest passage is long-running and the positions of the states concerned are to some extent polarised.  The promulgation of the proposed regulations, however, raises questions about how the dispute may be settled.
Judicial settlement is one option.  As is well-known, the Law of the Sea Convention creates a system of compulsory dispute settlement so the issue could be submitted to one of the courts or tribunals which may have jurisdiction under the Convention.   Of course, this option is only available to parties to the Law of the Sea Convention. The strength of feeling amongst the international shipping industry about the proposed regulations may dictate whether any state has the political will to initiate litigation.  On the other hand, the disadvantage of litigation is that it tends to limit who is involved in the process and it does not facilitate a solution that would necessarily take into account the views of all interested states.  For example, the United States is not a party to the Convention so it would have little opportunity to formally influence any litigation which took place under the Convention dispute settlement procedures.
An alternative option would be to raise the issue in an international organization such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO).  The legal committee of the IMO is used to debating and discussing controversial shipping measures proposed by states, e.g the compulsory pilotage scheme applied by Australia to the Torres Strait (see e.g. Roberts, ‘Compulsory Pilotage in International Straits: The Torres Strait PSSA Proposal’ (2006) 37 Oceans and Coastal Management 93).  Whilst the IMO has no powers to impose a definitive solution on the protagonists, it would provide an opportunity for all interested states to participate in a debate over the status of the waters and it may ultimately facilitate some sort of political settlement about how to treat navigation through the waters.  On the other hand, it may also simply risk showing that there is a strong and irreconcilable division of opinion on the issue!


  1. ontohod ontohod 8 March 2010

    thanx for the info 🙂

  2. kerry kerry 16 July 2010

    Canada has owned the archipelago for 150 years. Canadas inuit have used it and the sea ice for thousands of years. Their ancestors have been there for 750 thousand years. Canada was deeded the lands and waters by Britain. The inuit are Canadian by desire.There have been no challenges by most of the world on this. Canadas ownership is anchored in international law. No one seemed too interested when things were always frozen. Canada felt secure in its legal ownership. Now that the world sees the ice melting they wish to grab whatever they can. Canada will have to stand against this coveting of our country. We will not loose any of what is legally ours. So many are misinformed or ignorant about international law. Any infringement on canadian territory would be an act of war. We are talking about passage through canadas internal waters we are talking about passage only. Canada can regulate this passage perfectly well and Canadians have the emotional ties and interest in protecting the north in a viable way.
    Canadas northern archipelago waters are also internal ,supported by unclos and not disputed by most. The USA and others have nothing to gain by coveting Canadian waters or land. Canada Iam sure will protect its own. The arctic countries claims will be settled by unclos rules mostly. The onl;y thing in this for other countries like China for eg will be northern passage as ice melts. Canada will monitor any passage without predjudice through its internal waters in a fair and eqiutable way.
    I think canada will do an exemplary job of this. Canada can be a most gracious and generous country. We have the strongest desire to manage our north properly. It is after all our home and native land and we stand on guard for it. My heart goes out to the inuit people. I feel kin to them, and to all Canadians and would fight for them as I would fight for Canada. I dont think things would ever need to come to this but be assured Canada is capable. If Canadians will fight for Nato or another country half way around the world dont think Canadians would not fight for their homeland. We may be quiet and polite but we LOVE our Country . It would be great if the inuit could manage their lands without interference. This is not possible in the world we live in. The next best thing is for Canadians to stand with them in strength.

Leave a Reply