192 Project Day Session

Legal Challenges in the Arctic

Dr. Natalia Loukacheva Visiting Fellow Munk Centre for International Studies University of ,

Introduction Arctic Constitution or Arctic Charter, or an Arctic Trea- ty. Ideas of the creation of some comprehensive regime 2 Over the course of the last decades, the challenges posed in the Arctic, or as O. Young puts it: “[…] a constitu- to the existence of human, economic, sustainable devel- tional contract, for the Arctic treated as a distinct region 3 opment and multi-level governance systems in the Arc- in international society” are not new. The possibilities tic have prompted a renewed inquiry into the concrete and limitations of the establishment of a binding legal forms of legal arrangements, new legislation and other regime/or legal system pertaining to the Arctic have 4 legal measures that secure the basis for eff ective and re- been recommended by the Nordic Council in 2006, dis- silient adaptation and evolution of the Northern lands. cussed at the 7th Conference of Parliamentarians of the 5 This development in the legal fi eld takes place in inter- Arctic region, 2006 and several other workshops/semi- national and trans-national areas, national and regional nars, e.g. seminar on Multilateral Environmental Agree- 6 levels within the eight Arctic States and forms a con- ments and their relevance to the Arctic, 2006. Thus, in structive aspect of the general processes of globaliza- its statement, the 7th Conference suggested the legal re- tion, institutionalization and cultural, social, economic, gimes that impact the Arctic be audited and proposed political and other changes happening in the North. By that the UN conduct the Annual 2007 Treaty Event with 7 drawing on some Canadian developments, this paper the focus on UN treaties relevant to the Arctic. outlines general perspectives on understanding exist- ing legal challenges and the role of law in dealing with Despite many discussions, “Arctic law” terminology is Arctic ma ers. confusing and requires further analysis. There are other relevant terms, such as, for example: Nordic law, which Common Legal Challenges and usually covers legislative practices of Nordic countries. Clearly, development of “Arctic law” is hampered by the Role of Law divergences in the domestic legal systems which are becoming more integrated and gradually nullify dif- Recent initiatives involving various legal experts in ferences between a Common law, “Aboriginal law” and addressing legal ma ers in the Arctic (e.g. Chapter on the Civil/Continental (Pandect) systems of law (e.g. “Legal Systems” in the Arctic Human Development Re- Canada). There are obstacles in diff ering approaches 1 port, 2004, and ongoing cooperation among Nordic le- within each Arctic state toward the place of the North gal institutions via several networks, such as the Nordic in the national policies and consequent priorities in de- Research Network for Saami and Environmental Law veloping various legal regulations regarding Northern and the Nordic Human Rights Network), show an in- issues. OV en there is no coherence between federal/cen- creasing importance of legal thinking in various areas tral framework legislation and immediate needs that of Arctic and global developments. These trends also Northern legislators address locally. Local performers point to the question of the existence or necessity of de- oV en mimic existing national rules, policies, and agenda velopments of an “Arctic law,” a comprehensive legal due to the lack of fi nancial and scientifi c/manpower ca- regime which would embrace the legislative practices pacity to introduce a unique northern vision at the level of the eight Arctic States and international law relevant of regional legislation. There are some notable excep- to the Arctic region, or could lead to the development tions, for instance, the Wildlife Act, which came of some documents common to the Arctic States (e.g. an into force in July 2005, includes about 13 Qauji- Project Day Session Project Day Session 193 Leg majatuqangit (IQ- traditional knowledge) principles and place of indigenous knowledge, cultures and concepts

concepts. It can be argued, however, that the legislative in decision-making/legislative policies and the admin- al process itself is rooted in the mainstream legal system istration of justice. Chall and enforcement without a real connection to the Inuit 8 legal traditions. Further, debates over the benefi ts of soV - law instru- ments in the Arctic, as opposed to the necessity of legally eng Further challenge in defi ning “Arctic law” is connected binding agreements, also question the need for the de- es es with processes of legal globalization and developments velopment of “Arctic law.” Despite the fact that soV -law in international law, which, on the one hand, is becom- oV en provides a basis for hard law developments, these in ing more “universal” and points to the integration with debates raise the question of the importance of hard-law the

domestic legal systems. On the other hand, there is an commitments in the Arctic. Already existing web of soV - Ar overlap within various areas of international law it- law declarations, informal arrangements, and growing cti self. The new notion of “transnational public law” has institutional cooperation in the Arctic, show that these c emerged. According to H. Koh, it “[…] is neither fully measures oV en prove to be quite effi cient in addressing international, nor is it based only on one domestic law existing challenges. Activities of various Arctic forums, 9 or another. It is both.” Growing inter-dependence be- e.g. the , the Nordic Council, the Nordic tween national and international legal practices is rel- Council of Ministers, many bodies of environmental evant to the Arctic. Thus, common legal challenges to co-operation, University of the Arctic etc. also point to the Arctic countries oV en point to the need for interna- the benefi ts of employing informal practices. Increased tional legal guidance. In the meantime, developments intergovernmental cooperation among various levels in international law reveal that its jurisprudence relies of governance in the North also results in a growing on examples from domestic legal practices. amount of inter-governmental arrangements which are oV en effi cient. For instance, concluded in 2003 and re- Common legal challenges to the Arctic states include, newed in 2006 by 3 Canadian Northern territories the 10 for example: Northern Cooperation Accord (NCA) which had the aim of collaborative work to achieve goals common to • illegal immigration, fi shing and hunting activities Yukon, the N.W.T. and Nunavut agenda has paid off . Although it is questionable whether the NCA has any • drugs, possible human traffi cking real impact on the northern legal landscape, the terri- tories received substantial additional funding from the • cross-border crime and security against potential ter- Federal government. This success of the territorial lead- rorist threats ership was also conditioned by the ability and willing- ness of Northern premiers to work together. • effi ciency of judicial systems

Further, activities of indigenous NGO, like the Inuit Cir- • environmental, health, educational, trade, economic, cumpolar Council, which represents more than 155,000 human resources regulations Inuit of Alaska, four regions in Canada, and • affi rmative action/positive discrimination rules, em- Chukotka, show that this non-governmental organiza- ployment equity rules tion despite, limitations of its mandate, is oV en ahead of national governments of the USA, Canada, • traveling and visa policies/regulations and the Russian Federation in tackling the most urgent issues for Northern communities, e.g. POPs or climate • The need for more comprehensive international regu- change. For instance, the ICC’s petition to the Inter- lations due to technological developments and increas- American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief ing capability of commercial and other shipping activi- from Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused ties by Acts and Omissions of the , submi ed 11 12 December 7, 2005, despite its outcome, was breaking • High energy prices, improving economic feasibility new ground in international environmental law and en- of mineral exploration and exploitation in the Arctic, vironmental rights of indigenous peoples. increase in tourism activities require coherent mining, tourism, economic, etc. policies and call for correspond- Should international law, domestic law of Arctic states, ing legislative measures e.g. pollution, undersea min- trans-national law or developing practice of soV -law ing regulations etc. measures determine the direction of dealing with legal challenges in the North? Or in the future shall we work • The impact of colonialism on indigenous peoples, the with the concept of “Arctic law” which may embrace 194 Project Day Session

elements and practices of several legal regimes and Danish fl ag over the Island for several years and re- branches of law? peated visits to the Island. Canada contests this claim and has shown similar activities on the Island. There is Currently, we witness some success and gaps in inter- speculation that the Island is of interest to both sides be- national law and national legal systems in dealing with cause of probable natural resources, e.g. oil which may Northern ma ers. For instance, the UN Convention be located on or near the Island. The argument on both Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and sides is that the Inuit of Canada and Greenland have Natural Heritage (November 16, 1972) helps to protect been using this Island for centuries as an area for polar several thousand rock carvings created by the ancestors bear hunt. Some Inuit in Nunavut state that Canada can of Saami in Alta, . These carvings have been on claim the Island on the basis of historic use by Canadi- the World Heritage List since 1985. Canada ratifi ed this an Inuit of lands on the which Convention in 1976. However, the fossil forest on Axel include Hans Island. In September 2005, Denmark and Heiberg Island (Nunavut) and the ancient rock carvings Canada agreed to develop a protocol for managing near Kangiqsujuaq (Nunavik) are still top candidates Hans Island, revealing that both countries continue to 13 for World heritage sites status. Sadly in August 2006 pursue their claim and have agreed to disagree about 16 Canada’s only major 1,500 year old Arctic petroglyph the Island’s ownership. The dispute may be se led site at Qajartalik Island near Kangiqsujuaq was vandal- through the UN. Interestingly, despite this dispute, in 14 ized. February 2006 Canada issued to geologist Mr. J. Rob- ins a fi ve year prospector’s permit with exclusive right 17 Existing international and domestic legal regimes which to explore the entire Island. However, in September somehow deal with Arctic ma ers show that there is 2006 another scientist was rejected a permit to conduct no unanimous solution to the question of which legal research activities on the Island and was advised to co- 18 measures are most effi cient in dealing with current and operate with the Danes. future legal challenges in the North, as it will depend on the circumstances of each case. Even though today, Sovereignty Claims over the the effi ciency of hard law in solving Arctic ma ers is debatable, and “Arctic law” as a distinct area of law has a long way to be defi ned or developed, there is no disagreement that law, in fact, does ma er in address- An ongoing disagreement mostly among the EU, the ing Northern challenges in the Arctic as a whole, and in USA and Canada over the Northwest Passage (claims to the legislative practices of Arctic and other states with the waters of the ) is another example interests in the Circumpolar region. However, how to of a legal challenge. The melting of the Northwest Pas- enforce existing legislation is still a challenge for many sage and increasing transportation in the Arctic Ocean Arctic states. Further, I will look at some Canadian ex- reveal the need for Canada and the USA to resolve the amples to show the role of law in addressing challenges unresolved ma er: who controls the Passage? This dis- in the Arctic. pute is also bolstered by an expected future boom in re- source exploration including off shore and the question Ownership Claims: Hans Island of environmental control in the area. The U.S. does not recognize Canada’s sovereignty over An ongoing dispute between Canada and Denmark 19 the Passage and considers it as “international waters.” over Hans Island exemplifi es the challenge of applica- There have been incidents of foreign ships and subma- tion of national legislation and other local practices to rines sailing through Canada’s Arctic waters without support claims for ownership over the Island by each the consent or even the knowledge of the Canadian side, because of the partial insuffi ciency of existing in- Government (e.g. U.S. super tanker the SS Manha an ternational arrangements. Due to the sovereignty dis- sailed the passage escorted by a Canadian icebreaker in pute over Hans Island, the Island which is located be- 1969, and in 1970; the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea crossed tween (Nunavut) and Greenland was the passage in 1986; in 2005 a U.S. nuclear submarine excluded from a 1973 agreement between Canada and traveled to the , possibly via the Northwest Denmark on the delimitation of the continental shelf be- 15 Passage). tween Greenland and Canada. The continental shelf line was drawn up with exclusion of the Island which Canada refers to the Passage as “internal waters.” To consequently does not have an exclusive economic zone assert its sovereignty Canada needs to provide all or a territorial sea. The current dispute includes the Is- year-round military presence in the air, sea and on land only. The Danes strengthened their claim over the the ground. Commitments made by the current Con- Island by means of “eff ective occupation”– raising the servative government to build a deep water sea port in Project Day Session 195 Leg Nunavut, to create a new military training centre, to global war on terror aV er the events of September 11,

improve undersea and aerial surveillance, to increase 2001 suggest that it is not helpful for purposes of global al the number of Canadian rangers and to purchase three security to claim the Northwest Passage as “interna- Chall naval ice breakers should help in achieving this goal. tional waters.” Further, as D. Pharand notes, “[…] be- Further, to support its claim, within the last few years, cause of the remoteness of the region and the diffi culties eng Canada started extensive military exercises in the North. of navigation, comparatively li le use for international

For instance, in August 2006 Operation Lancaster which navigation might be suffi cient to make the passage an es 25 included navy, army and air force exercises in the Pas- international strait.” The legal challenge remains, but in in sage was one such undertaking in an a empt to show the tendency may be towards improved Canadian-U.S. the the international community Canadian capability to de- cooperation in this area. For instance, in April 2006 the fend its North. Furthermore, the Inuit who live in this North American Aerospace Defense Command (NO- Ar

area also support Canada’s eff orts to establish control RAD) agreement was renewed and now it includes cti 26 in the Passage. According to Malachi Arreak of Pond maritime surveillance. c Inlet, which is the nearest community to the Passage, “Lancaster Sound is our grocery store, so stop saying These disputes are relevant to the ma ers of control it’s an international waterway…This is our home and over potential resource areas and exploration licenses 20 native land.” This is also supported by the Nunavut in Canada-U.S. disagreements over Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) 1993 which affi rms in the Beaufort Sea (which has a potential of substantial Canada’s sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic Ar- oil and gas reserves), and the border at the bo om of chipelago on the basis of Inuit use and occupancy (Art. the Alaska panhandle. Questions of border delineation 15.1.1). Prime Minister Harper emphasized during his across Arctic waters are becoming of utmost importance August 2006 trip to the North, that “Canada intends to because of increasing accessibility to the last frontier. enforce its rights under the law of the sea” convention They also bring to the agenda political and legal issues (Art.234 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of ownership rights and the supremacy of application (UNCLOS). Mr. Harper said: “We must be certain that of legislation of Arctic states in the disputed areas (e.g. everyone who enters our waters respects our laws and who can fi sh, who can drill, what permits to ask for, regulations, particularly those that protect the fragile etc). Furthermore, legal claims in the Arctic may extend 21 Arctic environment.” beyond the eight Arctic states and include other coun- tries with interests in the region. There are, however, 22 The existing array of legal arguments show that it is some developments which may bring a challenge to ex- not clear which legislation is be er to use, for exam- isting international and domestic legal regimes. ple, in order to protect the Passage from consequences of global security threats. Some authorities argue that Icebergs compared to international law Canadian legislation presents a stronger case in protecting defence interests In 2004 two proposals by British entrepreneurs to steer 23 within the disputed area. If the Northwest Passage is icebergs from Canada’s East Coast to Europe (e.g. Spain an international strait – “international waters,” as the and Portugal) raised the question of ownership and U.S. and some other countries claim then it is possible pointed to a potential confl ict between Canada and for various states to send their ships, submarines, in- Greenland in that regard. According to some estimates, cluding possible “terrorist” warships, or vessels car- a 50-million-tonne iceberg can provide about $3 million rying toxic cargo to sail through the Passage without worth of fresh water. Greenland produces the largest notifi cation. This may have serious implications for glo- amount of icebergs in the world. Most icebergs origi- bal security, Canadian claims of control over the area, nate in Greenland and driV along the coasts of the Ca- environment and social disruptions. nadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If in the future iceberg-trade becomes a reality than it will Existing legal debate also reveal weaknesses in the legal need further legal clarifi cation as to who owns icebergs position of Canada as a coastal state and potential user and should control this trade, including some regula- states, insuffi ciency of Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution tions on resource sharing (for example, Canada sells to 27 Prevention Act (AWPPA) and Canada/USA 1988 agree- the EU icebergs that driV ed from Greenland). ment on “Arctic Cooperation” to resolve this ma er. G. MacNeil suggests that rather than conforming to the ar- Claims Over the North Pole guments of both sides, the development of an emerging 24 unique Arctic regime may help to deal with this issue. Canada and Denmark disagree with the Russian Fed- Although legal arguments of Canada and the USA to eration over the seabed jurisdictions on the underwater support claims over the Passage has not changed, the mountain Lomonosov Ridge. In accordance with the 196 Project Day Session

UNCLOS, which covers seabed claims, Canada has by tices and regulations. For instance, for Nunavut, this December 7, 2013 to submit evidence which will help devolution agreement and transfer from O awa of re- to determine the extent of its continental shelf over sponsibility for the management of oil, gas and mineral which it exercises exclusive sovereign rights, including extraction on Crown lands and off shore, is of particular potential underwater reserves of oil, gas and miner- signifi cance for the territory’s economic independence 30 als. Canada now conducts surveys and mapping in the and self-sustainable future. Importantly, Nunavut of- area to identify the limits and boundary of its undersea fi c ials emphasize that a devolution deal must include continental shelf that lie beyond the 200-nautical mile under seabed resources in the internal waters (substan- EEZ. Denmark ratifi ed UNCLOS in 2004 and has to put tial area of the Northwest Passage) that would help to forward its claims towards potential areas and provide support Canada’s sovereignty claim on the basis of do- 31 data for a submission to the UN by November 16, 2014. mestic legislation. The Russian Federation ratifi ed UNCLOS in 1997 and has to prove by 2007 that the Lomonosov Ridge is a con- Devolution processes can be observed in recent consti- tinuation of the Siberian continental shelf. tutional developments regarding Inuit within the prov- ince of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland and On June 27, 2005 Canada and Denmark signed a MOU Labrador. For instance, the Nunavik (“place to live”) (representatives from Natural resources Canada and project in Northern Quebec embraces about 10,000 Inuit the geological survey of Denmark and Greenland). They living in 14 coastal communities. In June 2003 the Inuit agreed to collaborate on an undersea data collection birthright corporation (Makivik) signed a framework project and conduct surveys in areas north of Ellsemere agreement with the Province of Quebec establishing a 28 Island and Greenland. The MOU helps both countries formal process for signing a fi nal agreement dealing to improve their understanding of this area while re- with the merging of the main institutions of Nuna- ducing research costs. In 2006 a joint Canadian-Danish vik, created under the and Northern Que- expedition started to conduct such geological surveys. bec Agreement (JBNQA) of 1975, into a single entity. In the 2007 budget the Danish government appropri- Thus, a unifi ed public governmental structure will be ated DKK 47 million to fund studies of the continental composed of: the Nunavik government and a Nunavik shelf off the Faroe Islands and Greenland which are ex- Assembly. Negotiations of the Agreement in Principle pected to help in identifying Denmark’s potential claim have now been completed by the Makivik Corporation, 29 areas in the Arctic. Quebec and Federal governments. Furthermore, since the Inuit claims to off shore areas were excluded from Governance Arrangements in the negotiations of the JBNQA, the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement (NILCA), which has been signed on the Canadian North December 1, 2006, resolves the outstanding aboriginal claims of Inuit in the Nunavik Marine region. Among Nunavut (“our land”) was carved out of the N.W.T. other things, the NILCA provides Inuit with ownership in 1999. The system of public government (mirroring of 80 per cent of all the islands (subsurface and surface the mainstream system) with an indigenous majority rights) off Northern Quebec and part of Labrador; cre- (about 85% of the population are Inuit) was put in place. ates co-management boards, establishes National Park Increased jurisdictions over land management and re- Reserve in Labrador and entrenches Nunavik aborigi- sources, housing, economic development etc. show 32 nal fi shing rights in the and Baffi n Bay. that the territory is oV en unable to assume liability and exercise existing jurisdiction without substantial fund- In January 2005, the 5,300 member Labrador Inuit As- ing from the Federal Government. This is a challenge sociation, the Federal Government and the Government in implementation of many land claim agreements in of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador signed Canada’s North, including challenges connected with a comprehensive land claims agreement. On December the Federal Government’s inability to meet its obliga- 1, 2005 Nunatsiavut (“Our beautiful land”) and the Nu- tions under the Land Claims. Existing LCAs refl ect in- natsiavut government, (which will consist of an Inuit adequate mechanism for their implementation. They self-governing regional authority and fi ve Inuit com- have been criticized for a weak protection of socio-eco- munity governments) became a legal and constitutional nomic rights, women rights, etc. That is why it is not ac- reality. Compared to Nunavut and Nunavik, the Nu- cidental that three Canadian Northern territories have natsiavut Land Claims agreement provides for a form reached or are negotiating devolution agreements with of explicit Inuit self-government, rather than public the Federal Government (Yukon 2003, the N.W.T. and 33 government with “an indigenous face.” Nunavut are in the process of negotiations). The goal of each territory is to achieve fi scal and economic sustain- These developments in the Canadian North show that ability. These pose challenges to local legislative prac- Project Day Session 197 Leg existing Land Claims, so-called modern treaties with in- the Arctic. Arendal, Norway. 21-22 September 2006. 7 Statement of 7th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region.

digenous groups, are undergoing the process of re-eval- Kiruna, Sweden, 2-4 August 2006, points 28-9. al uation and further constitutional and political evolu- 8 Comment by Mr. Pierre Rousseau. Chall tion. These processes are partially driven by aspirations 9 Harold H. Koh. Foreword. In M-C Cordonier Segger and C.C. Weeramantry eds. Sustainable Justice. Reconciling Economic, Social and among indigenous groups to take more responsibility Environmental Law. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nij hoff Publishers 2005:V. eng for their lands and regain control over their lives by re- 10 See: ‘The North’s Place in Canada’s Future.” , November 7, 2006. 11 See: www.inuitcircumpolar.org

alization of their right to self-determination. Another es 12 Jane George. “ICC climate change petition rejected.” Nunatsiaq News. major factor is the focus on economic self-sustainabil-

December 15, 2006. in ity and need for less dependency on Federal funding, 13 Jane George. “World heritage designation brings money, protection.” the as well as the necessity to become more fl exible in ad- Nunatsiaq News. July 28, 2006. 14 Randy Boswell. “Ancient Arctic rock carvings vandalized: Petroglyphs dressing local and global challenges. Within the exist- Ar of faces: Archaeologist suspects religious motives.” . August 26,

ing constitutional framework, the challenge is how to 2006. cti make diff erent developing governance arrangements 15 Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the c more effi cient and sustainable in practice while contrib- relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada. O awa: December 17, 1973. uting to sustenance and protection of indigenous cul- 16 Joint Statement. New York. September 19, 2005. tures. The scope and variety of land claims negotiations 17 Prospector’s permit gives man exclusive rights to Hans Island for fi ve and existing agreements in the Canadian North do not years. National Post. August 15, 2006. 18 Nathan VanderKlippe. “Sovereignty spat keeps scientist off Arctic island: solve the core issue of “legal sustainability.” Both Canada and Denmark lay claim to Hans Island near Greenland.” Edmonton Journal, September 13, 2006. Conclusion 19 In 2006 the U.S. Congress commissioned a report rejecting Canada’s claim of sovereignty in favour of “increasing U.S. presence in international waters of the North.” See: “An Arctic mystery.” Editorial. Globe and Mail. October 2, This paper a empted to show that there is no simple 2006. solution on the issue of the defi nition what “Arctic law” 20 Bob Weber. “Northwest Passage ‘grocery store,’ not international waters, is and whether we need a comprehensive legal regime say Inuit.” Canadian Press. August 20, 2006. 21 Graham Fraser. “Arctic defence: Sure, he missed the AIDS conference, but for the Arctic as a distinct region. Further developments Stephen Harper made waves in the Arctic this week: But were the PM’s tough in the national legislation of the Arctic States and in- words on Arctic sovereignty anything more than just mere talk?” Toronto Star. ternational law and the strengthening of jurisdiction of August 19, 2006 22 Michael Byers and Suzanne Lalonde. Who controls the Northwest Passage? institutions of Arctic ordering may point to the neces- A discussion paper prepared in advance of a conference on “Canada’s Arctic sity of negotiation of legal arrangements via an Arctic Waters in International Law and Diplomacy,” O awa, June 14, 2006: 7-26; treaty system/Constitution etc. Considering current de- Donat Pharand. “Our sovereignty is melting: Canada has a solid claim to its Arctic waters; but we must work hard to keep it from slipping away.” O awa velopments, there is a need to enhance cooperation and Citizen. August 23, 2006. establish a be er dialogue among legal scholars dealing 23 Jackie Wallace. “Taking the Northwest Passage. Experts stress the importance with Arctic ma ers and with representatives of other of answering Arctic sovereignty questions sooner rather than later.” Interviews with social sciences and policy makers in addressing legal Michael Byers and Franklyn Griffi ths. Canadian Geographic magazine May- June 2006 on-line. challenges in the North. 24 Gillian MacNeil. “The Northwest Passage: Sovereign Seaway or International Strait? A Reassessment of the legal status.” Dalhousie J. Legal Acknowledgements Studies 15(2006):204-240. 25 Pharand (2006), supra note 22. I am grateful to Mr. Pierre Rousseau for comments on 26 Sieff , Martin. “NORAD renewal good news for U.S.” Intelligence and this paper. Terrorism Features. May 10, 2006. www.news.monstersandcritics.com/ intelandterror/printer_1162933.php 27 Randy Boswell. “Icebergs could add fuel to the fi re.” National Post. March Notes 31, 2004:A6. 28 MOU. O awa, June 27, 2005. Canada and Denmark Agree in Joint Survey. 1 Ch. 6, lead author Nigel D. Bankes. AHDR Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic News Release. July 14, 2004. Institute, 2004. 29 “Polar Territorial Rights Study Funded in 2007 Budget.” Sermitsiaq News. 2 Ch.6 In: Donald R. Rothwell. The Polar Regions and the Development of November 8, 2006. International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 30 About developments in Nunavut see: Natalia Loukacheva. The Arctic 3 Oran R. Young. The Internationalization of the Circumpolar North: Creating Promise: Legal and Political Autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut. Toronto: a Course for the 21st Century, 2000:5. University of Toronto Press, 2007. 4 See Recommendation A1392/medboger, Nordic Council, Lahti, Finland, 31 Paul Okalik. “The North is Nunavut’s: Nunavut cannot accept an 19-20 September, 2006. agreement on resources that perpetuates colonial rule and risks Canada’s 5 7th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region. Kiruna, Sweden, Arctic sovereignty.” O awa Citizen. December 13, 2006. 2-4 August 2006. 32 About developments in Nunavik see: www.makivik.org 6 Seminar on Multilateral Environmental Agreements and their relevance to 33 About developments in Nunatsiavut see: www.nunatsiat.com