Happy Researching Sarthak Sarthak Pandya - disec vhmun. Because of the multidimensional potential of the region, which has been attracting human exploration and exploitation since the BC period until today, the Arctic territory remains a subject of dispute between both the involved state-parties and the international community in general. The Arctic is inhabited approximately by 4. The significance of the territory lies in its wealthy resources oil, gas, diamonds etc and its use as a transportation route for both people and goods.
The latter are the main reasons that render this area a subject of conflict among the states surrounding it. The definition of the Arctic status is a rather controversial issue. Canada and Denmark both claim the Hans Island — a rather small, uninhabited rock in the Kennedy Channel measuring 1.
The Hans Island, however, is located exactly on the line between two such points. In March , both governments regarded the conflict as a long-standing issue8, but both governments do not take the issue too seriously. Still, negotiations continue whether the island will be divided or become a condominium.
A much more serious conflict may arise over the Lomonosov Ridge, claimed by Canada, Denmark and the Russian Federation.
It leads from Greenland via the North Pole to Siberia, always remaining under water. All countries claim it as an extension of their continental shelf, which would widen their harvesting rights and enable them to build artificial islands. The true importance of the Lomonosov Ridge, however, is rather symbolic: it is believed, that the North Pole is located near to it.
Therefore whoever can claim the Lomonosov Ridge as continental shelf, may exercise a certain influence over the North Pole. Since then, various missions have been sent there by all claimants to gather evidence fostering their respective claims. In , a Russian scientific mission planted a flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole.
New impetus is believed to be added to the discussion in when a current Russian endeavour is believed to deliver new evidence. Due to climate change, the North West passage may become navigable within the next few years. This would result in an alternative to the Panama route, accelerating trade between the Pacific sphere and Europe. Canada regards the Passage as internal waters due to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and thus deny all other countries passage.
The US and the EU on the other hand, regard it as an international strait granting Canada only fishing and environmental regulations and all other countries transit passage. Although this might result in controversial dispute with global consequences, it does not have the potential to lead to a conflict between two NATO-nations.
Cold War Past As the Cold War was heating up in the s, the Arctic came into the focus of the militarising super- powers. Submarines came into the focus of military strategists, as they could hide beneath the pack ice, surface, launch rockets and slip again under the ice. Following the Sputnik shock and the disaster of the exploding Vanguard rocket 2 months later, the US needed to catch up with the Soviet Union in the scientific race and the Arctic provided a perfect opportunity for that.
The message of the USS Nautilus making a voyage under the Arctic ice cap was thus welcomed by the Eisenhower administration.
Navigating a submarine under the polar sea meant far more to the Americans than the Sputnik-satellite. It enabled the Americans to operate in the influence zone of the Soviets, who on their turn were not able to hinder the Americans from doing so, unless they developed a similar submarine — a feat completed 4 years after the Nautilus mission. In the 30 years to come, Russian and American submarines played cat and mouse, sheltering vessels and tapping undersea cables, preparing for a war never to come. Antarctica, however, has been addressed in 10 resolutions since the end Cold War, dealing with environment, scientific research benefitting the international community, administrative issues between the Secretariat and the Antarctic Treaty, apartheid and the urge that activities in Antarctica should be carried out peacefully.
However, this is a multilateral agreement, outside of the UN structure.
The Arctic Council The Arctic Council is a multilateral forum, which was formed in the intention to deal with disputes concerning the Arctic governments and the environmental impacts that the indigenous people of the Arctic face. However, it was only recognized as a forum in the Ottawa Declaration, which determined the Arctic Council to be a medium for cooperation, interaction, coordination, and environmental protection of the Arctic. Since then, it has led several studies on Arctic shipping, the resources in the Arctic oil, gas, etc.
China, although not a member state, is a permanent observer in the Arctic Council, and this allows China to develop new trade routes and take a more prominent role in the matter. The Arctic poses as both an economic and a naval advantage for China. Due to this increasing military approach, there are demands for the Arctic Council to discuss military and security problems.
The militaries of most Arctic states are taking on new and expanded roles in the region that go beyond their traditional responsibilities, which may create friction in the region These new developments need to be discussed to ensure that all Arctic Council member states understand why they are occurring, and increase the confidence of members that these new developments are not about a conflict in the Arctic, but about the defence of core strategic interests It is easy to see how both the Americans and Russians will become increasingly concerned about the security steps that the other is taking.
But now is the time for all to openly discuss these developments so that old suspicions and distrusts do not resurface. They comprehensively discussed the role of Northern militaries, cooperation in terms of knowledge, and knowledge about operational flaws, effectively becoming an essential conference to deal with Arctic safety and security. The document deals with issues ranging from identifying US security interests to developing cooperation and coordination to the active exploitation of the Arctic while suggesting to strengthen national defence and navigation systems.
The most important agreement regulating sovereign rights in the Arctic and other sea areas is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNCLOS , which is currently the only international piece of legislation governing the rights and duties of states regarding the seas and oceans in the world. It describes the limitations that each state should adhere to. Some claim that it should be the height at which an object enters into orbit and thus somewhere between 70 km and km, itself quite a large span.
Others, such as the equatorial states which signed the Bogota Declaration of , claim sovereignty up to the geostationary orbit, which is 36, km.
The first is that it is recognized that a space exists somewhere above territory and beyond sovereignty , though precisely where nobody knows. The second observation is that the implication of the and treaties is rather telling: the common heritage of mankind, beyond sovereignty, lies in outer space; in other words, the common heritage of mankind remains out of the reach of more or less the whole of mankind. I will return to the question of sovereignty and space shortly, but for now we can note that the problem identified by political geographers and international lawyers remains: regardless of precisely where, vertically, sovereignty ends, surely any aerial military intervention infringes the logic of sovereignty?
And surely this is nowhere clearer than in the no-fly zone, which not only allows aircraft of other states the right to fly but simultaneously denies a sovereign state the use of its own airspace? Such questions are even more pressing when one realizes that the legality of no-fly zones is muddy at best. But there is a more telling point to be made. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down.
Here the fact that the no-fly zone is presented as a prohibition on flying is important. An interdiction is a prohibition, and a military interdiction is the attempt to prohibit the enemy from engaging in the war, such as by cutting off weapons, food and information.
On desktop computers and some mobile devices, you may need to download an eBook reader to view ePub files. In some of these cases, a person could suffer an injury along with the property loss, but we are not considering the personal injury in these scenarios. LeClairRyan - Michele C. Altruism can, nonetheless, be seen as one of several reasons for the final decision on March Performance Standards and Proficiency Consider establishing minimum performance standards for drone pilots along with a program to assess pilot proficiency. Weizman, E.
The purpose of interdiction is simply to isolate the battlefield. This fact is important for two reasons.
First, it reinforces the point just made: that an air interdiction and the no-fly zone is never simply a prohibition on all flying but involves extensive bombing of targets within the zone by those imposing the prohibition. Now, on the one hand, this term was meant in the broadest sense of air power as a form of police power that had been developed through colonial campaigns of the s: the police action in question involved extensive bombing combined with an attempt at constituting a new social order. It is no longer widely read, but in its day it was a text of profound importance.
Such requirements depend on good national police forces. In other words, what applies in the class war should apply in international war: peace demands police. The intensity of the debate about international police through air power did not subside through World War II; indeed, it intensified. This was reiterated in J. This account above has been necessarily terse and perhaps too sweeping, but hopefully the point is clear:. The no-fly zone needs to be understood as part of this long trajectory of air power as police power. If the legality of the no-fly zone is muddy, then, it is because its roots lie in police, and thus come with all the legal muddiness of police powers.
This is also why the guiding principle of such zones is order rather than law : police power exists for the fabrication of order, not the exercise of law. The idea that international police might be realized through air power presupposes that sovereignty must give way to order, and holds in reserve the possibility that however much a sovereign entity might resist intervention enacted in the name of this order, the requirements of international peace — that is, police — demand it. This is why the scholarship on the topic is remarkably varied, covering police forces working across different nations, comparison of such forces and national police agencies, state collaboration over crime and terrorism, the international activities of organs such as the CIA or the FBI, UN peacekeeping, the law and order functions of organizations such as the EU, the control of post-colonial orders, military intervention, humanitarian intervention, militaryhumanitarian intervention, the use of military power in aid of civil government, and usually a combination of two or more of these.
These invariably follow the same pattern: principles are proposed around which mankind should organize for peace minimizing violence, maximizing well-being, respecting human rights, and so on , to be realized through an international governance structure World Assembly, Central Coordinating Council, World Grievance System, World Economic System, and so on , but the whole model often ultimately turns on the police idea. No answer is given.
This instability in the concept of international police is why, despite decades of writing on the subject, its critical examination encounters nothing essential at all. Like police power in general, it is formless and intangible, and yet the history of liberal internationalism means that it nonetheless also has an all-pervasive, ghostly presence.
But note: its intangibility as international police power is quickly overtaken by the tangibility of the war power of the sovereign states imposing the zone. This also applies to the no-fly zone. Here, the no-fly zone needs to be understood as running alongside and as part of the increased use of drones. When in March the UN declared a no-fly zone over Libya, it was pretty quickly followed by the use of drones in the region.