In July of 2007, a Russian crew headed to the bottom of the ocean in a pair of Mir-I submarines, the same kind seen and used in James Cameron's Titanic. This time, though, the goal was not so much to find something as to leave something -- a little titanium Russian flag -- on the floor of the Arctic Ocean directly atop the North Geographic Pole. They succeeded in doing so, and the act was hailed in Russia -- while in Canada, where nerves over Arctic sovereignty are thin and often frayed, Foreign Minister Peter MacKay criticized the action as meaningless, declaring that "this isn't the fifteenth century." Maybe not, and it's not really likely that this flag-planting will have anything beyond a symbolic effect, but all the same it's no less strange an exercise than the Canadian government's touting of the finding of the Franklin-era search ship HMS Investigator, which they decided was important enough to fly the Environment Minister up to the site at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, just to film a few snippets for the news. Military exercises in support of Canadian sovereignty have become an annual event, now known as Operation NOREX.
There are many ways a claim of sovereignty can be made; prominent among them are discovery (I was here first), cession (you can have it, I don't want it), subjugation (I conquered it by force), and contiguity (it's in the midst of lands I already claim). One might think, given all the flag-plantings, that discovery was the strongest claim, but it practice is can be the weakest; land discovered but not occupied, or without the effective exercise of control, may be deemed "inchoate" -- undeveloped or temporary -- and thus liable to the claims of others who may, in fact, arrive much later. All these issues, as one may imagine, become trickier in Canada's north, whose vast landmass is larger than India but has a population not much greater than West Warwick RI.
The Russian sub stunt has to do with the sub-category of sovereignty pertaining to coasts. While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines territorial waters as extending only 12 nautical miles from shore, some countries regard all waters situated above the continental shelf supporting the country's landmass as theirs. The Russians, of course, take the latter view, and since their shelf extends from the northern coastline to a few miles of the geographic pole, planting a flag on the seabed there is only a modest extension of what they already claim. A good summary of the issues, and why a recent survey of the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean attracted such attention, is available here.
Russia, already busily selling oil leasing rights along its northern coast, is willing to bet there are more such resources under the polar sea -- and if the icecap were to melt in summer -- something once unthinkable but now only a decade or less away in some projections -- the logistical difficulties of extracting and transporting mineral resources would be greatly reduced. It's a time of tremendous anxiety -- and, for some, opportunity -- and the only (nearly) sure thing is that native northern peoples are unlikely to get their fair share.
In 2015, Russia submitted a new claim to vast swathes of the Arctic, up to and including the pole itself. See this article in the New York Times, and this in the National Post. The United States has just recently started reconsidering its Arctic policy to "project" sovereignty in the region, and Canada submitted its own Arctic claim in 2019.
There are many ways a claim of sovereignty can be made; prominent among them are discovery (I was here first), cession (you can have it, I don't want it), subjugation (I conquered it by force), and contiguity (it's in the midst of lands I already claim). One might think, given all the flag-plantings, that discovery was the strongest claim, but it practice is can be the weakest; land discovered but not occupied, or without the effective exercise of control, may be deemed "inchoate" -- undeveloped or temporary -- and thus liable to the claims of others who may, in fact, arrive much later. All these issues, as one may imagine, become trickier in Canada's north, whose vast landmass is larger than India but has a population not much greater than West Warwick RI.
The Russian sub stunt has to do with the sub-category of sovereignty pertaining to coasts. While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines territorial waters as extending only 12 nautical miles from shore, some countries regard all waters situated above the continental shelf supporting the country's landmass as theirs. The Russians, of course, take the latter view, and since their shelf extends from the northern coastline to a few miles of the geographic pole, planting a flag on the seabed there is only a modest extension of what they already claim. A good summary of the issues, and why a recent survey of the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean attracted such attention, is available here.
Russia, already busily selling oil leasing rights along its northern coast, is willing to bet there are more such resources under the polar sea -- and if the icecap were to melt in summer -- something once unthinkable but now only a decade or less away in some projections -- the logistical difficulties of extracting and transporting mineral resources would be greatly reduced. It's a time of tremendous anxiety -- and, for some, opportunity -- and the only (nearly) sure thing is that native northern peoples are unlikely to get their fair share.
In 2015, Russia submitted a new claim to vast swathes of the Arctic, up to and including the pole itself. See this article in the New York Times, and this in the National Post. The United States has just recently started reconsidering its Arctic policy to "project" sovereignty in the region, and Canada submitted its own Arctic claim in 2019.

Madison Kite
ReplyDeleteAssignment #9: Polar Sovereignty
This might be a naive take on polar sovereignty (and sovereignty in general), but why does it even exist if it's not enforced and follows no clear rules? Sovereignty is an idea humans created to keep "peace," yet it often causes more problems. Historically, when indigenous people have claimed land, it hasn't stopped other countries from taking over. For example, Canada took over Nunavut in the 1870s without the consent of the native people living there. Did it matter that the native people had already claimed the land and lived there for thousands of years? No! Countries, including America, will exploit land whether they have sovereignty or not. Look at Southwest Asia: America had no problem going there for oil, causing political unrest that has scarred those nations for years.
My take is that if we want international law to support the sovereignty of nations, the International Court has to be given more power. For example, in the South China Sea, China is literally making islands so they can claim the sea as theirs. The International Court can say, "Hey, stop doing that. We made laws that say you have to split up the sea with your neighboring countries that touch the coast." But that doesn’t stop China from claiming the land, which leads to countries like the Philippines preparing for war. All Russia has to do is say, "Well, we claim this land. What are you gonna do about it?" which is just going to lead to massive conflicts. Moreover, why is sovereignty such a big deal when nations don't even recognize entire countries?
If we are going to make sovereignty real, every nation needs to follow international law, and there need to be repercussions if they don’t. What would the repercussions be? I have no clue—I'm not a politician. Obviously, nothing violent. However, I also recognize how giving the International Court more power could be devastating if it ends up in corrupt hands.
I know this would never happen, but I say we just leave the Arctic alone. The Arctic is a special place with fragile ecosystems, and we have a horrible track record of destroying them. No one should be able to claim the Arctic until all (or most) countries are united under international law (which will probably be never). People can explore and enjoy what it has to offer, but let’s leave the oil alone.
This is a highly complex topic, and I’m sure I'm missing huge facts about sovereignty. I'm not a Political Science major, so I don’t know if anything I said is feasible or makes sense. But please feel free to educate me or straight up tell me I'm wrong! I haven't taken a global politics class in a few years, LOL!
International law most definitely can be tricky. Countries can simply decide to not follow along (the US does this towards the UN more frequently than you would think). Giving the power to enforce International laws to a single entity probably is not a good idea, in my opinion anyway. We see countries take land that does not belong the them if it suits their interests (look at Russia right now). While we are supporting Ukraine, no is really putting in the force required to stop what is going on. Until there is a International Court that has the authority to set sanctions, fines, or other means of repercussions, it is not going to stop the more powerful countries from doing what they please.
DeleteOn your opinion of the Arctic, I also feel it should be left alone. Similar to the Antarctic, there is no reason to be destabilizing the area that we have no idea what kind of repercussions could come from it for us globally. I feel it should be protected from anyone claiming rights to it and not be altered in any way just to gain natural resources.
I agree wholeheartedly, Madison. The Arctic is a special place with fragile ecosystems, and should be left alone. It should not be destroyed just because of politics.
DeleteYou raised some excellent points about the flaws in the concept of sovereignty and the need for international cooperation and law. I agree that the concept of sovereignty can be problematic, especially when it's used to justify exploitation and disregard for indigenous rights. Your point about the International Court needing more power to enforce international law is well-taken. The current system is indeed flawed, and it often seems like countries can ignore international law with impunity. I also agree that the Arctic is a special place that requires careful management and protection. Your suggestion to leave the Arctic alone and prioritize its fragile ecosystems is a valid one. It's a reminder that we need to put the planet's well-being ahead of national interests and economic gain. As for your comment about nations not recognizing entire countries, you're right that this is a significant problem. It's a major challenge for global governance and requires a fundamental shift in how we approach international problems.
DeleteIn my opinion the Russian expedition in July 2007 to plant a titanium flag on the Arctic Ocean floor at the North Pole was a bold yet largely symbolic gesture in the ongoing battle for Arctic sovereignty. Traditional claims of sovereignty, such as those based on discovery, are especially flimsy in the broad populated Arctic. Generally speaking, claims of sovereignty are considered unclear and open to contest if they are not effectively occupied and controlled. This is particularly evident in Canada's north, where the tiny population is drastically out of proportion to the terrain' immense size. It is not enough to just plant flags and make symbolic gestures in the fight for Arctic sovereignty. Economic, strategic, and environmental factors are all heavily weighted in this intricate and costly game.
ReplyDeleteMadison Brodeur
Totally agree, Madison. Planting flags is almost a childish representation to represent sovereignty. I'm thinking of the scene in the Parent Trap revival movie where the twin from England placed her twin sister's bunk bed on top of the cabin with the British flag, as a way to claim authority. To me, the Russians placing the flag is akin to that scenario. We must consider the whole picture, rather than just "Russians Rule."
DeleteI feel that the Russian exploration of the sea was very exciting. Despite the traditional claims of discovery I think the Russians have the right idea here. We know far more about our solar system than we do about the bottom of the ocean. Sea exploration is the last bit of the world people have yet to complete. If there is any strides being taken toward that, I believe it is cause to celebrate.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Lozinski
Discussion Question #9
ReplyDeleteI think the Russians had the right idea in exploring the sea, however the desire for sovereignty over the parts of the Arctic Sea that belong to the U.S. and Canada is simply another example of Russian communism. The Russians have had it in for the U.S., and probably Canada for decades; therefore, it does not surprise me that they would want to take over certain areas. It is hard for me to imagine that the intentions of the Russians are entirely pure. I feel like their greatest desire is to claim that area of the Arctic Ocean without considering the consequences and dangers of doing so, and how that would affect the residents of that area. Many things can go awry, like oil spills or pollution of other substances and I feel as though the Russians are not being mindful of this. I think that Canada should continue to fight to maintain their territory. Not to sound judgmental, but I would not trust the intentions of a communist country. The attitude should be less about taking over, and more about offering and sharing resources. With a communist country like Russia, I would not trust them even if they came under the guise of wanting to help. I think there is a fine line here. The Arctic Sea and all of its ecosystems should be preserved to enjoy, not exploited for profitable gain.
Veronica Leonardo
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Madison wrote 100%.
As I asked the question in class.. what gives anyone the authority to own land, or say that they do. To want to own it or "gift it". And, what is not to say that if Russia was able to just "claim" this territory, that others would not want to contest that?
And as my other peers have mentioned, I also believe that this would also affect the surrounding environments. I think we should just follow the "I belong to the land, the land doesnt belong to me" quote here. Sometimes we --humans-- should really just stay out of it and let things be what they are.
As I read about the Russian sub's flag planting stunt on the Arctic Ocean floor, I couldn't help but think about the absurdity of it all. It's like a game of Risk, where countries are vying for control over a vast and largely uncharted region. But beneath the surface, there are real people whose lives and livelihoods are being impacted by these claims of sovereignty. I believe that Polar Sovereignty is a relic of the past, a relic of colonialism and imperialism. It's a concept that prioritizes national interests over the well-being of indigenous communities and the environment. The Arctic is not just a resource to be exploited, it's a fragile ecosystem that requires protection and preservation. The Russian government's actions are a classic example of this flawed thinking. What about the Inuit, the indigenous peoples who have lived in the Arctic for thousands of years?
ReplyDeleteI don’t mind the Russians exploration of new parts/or areas of the world, provided that the possibility of causing irreversible damage to the planet we live in is at minimum and does not have devastating consequences. However, they shouldn’t be planting flags or anything else in the name of so-called sovereignty. Claiming parts of the sea beyond that which is allocated to a particular nation, however, is wrong in my opinion. It shouldn’t belong to anyone. Every nation needs to follow international laws. Allowing a nation (for example Russia) to mark a part of the seas as their own without repercussions, only leads to the possibility of war between nations. If Russia is allowed, then the other countries will feel the right to do the same and sometimes they might fight over the same region, as we’re already seeing. I think the Arctic should be off limits and should be protected by the United Nations or some form of international committee that has a representative from all nations. All regions of the earth that is important for the health of our planet (should be protected (especially with the global warming issue going on).
ReplyDelete~Jaycee~
I think that the symbolic planting of the Russian flag at the North Pole is an extreme case of the growing competition between nations, with Canada and the US also trying their dominance in the area for resources. The vanishing of the ice cap, although it seems as if it is a window of opportunity that opens up resources, is also the cause of serious ecological and logistical concerns. Besides, the rights and well-being of indigenous communities are the key issue as they could be discriminated in the development process.
ReplyDeleteI think that the symbolic planting of the Russian flag at the North Pole is an extreme case of the growing competition between nations, with Canada and the US also trying their dominance in the area for resources. The vanishing of the ice cap, although it seems as if it is a window of opportunity that opens up resources, is also the cause of serious ecological and logistical concerns. Besides, the rights and well-being of indigenous communities are the key issue as they could be discriminated in the development process.
ReplyDeleteYeison De La Rosa
Just because you plant a flag on the ground does not mean it is your property. When learning about Russia marking the Arctic Ocean Floor as their own territory, I felt concern and confuse. How can someone just claim a territory without realizing the indigenous family and communities living there years ago? How about the ecosystem and food supply chain? Like stated in the articles, Russia wants the Arctic because they plan to open the military base and because of the valuable resources. Personally, I think that it’s insane to believe they want more expansion since Russia is already a large country. I hope that the coast guard or Canada’s officers are continuously guarding the Arctic Ocean from any conflicts arising from Russia.
ReplyDeleteI understand the symbolic significance behind planting a flag in the Arctic, but it does feel somewhat pointless in today's world. It asserts territorial claims, but it doesn't tackle bigger issues like taking care of the environment, sharing resources fairly, or considering how climate change affects the Arctic. Our main focus should be working together to protect the Arctic and ensuring that everyone benefits, including the indigenous communities. This means focusing on conservation and responsible use of resources to preserve the Arctic's environment and promote sustainable development. By addressing these challenges together, we can create a better future for the Arctic.
ReplyDeleteNatalie, I totally agree. There is somewhat of a symbolic significance, but honestly if it hadn't been talked about, would anyone really know it was there? I don't really see how planting a flag at that depth means that Russia owns the property. I see it as a little immature on their end. It's sad to see that with everything the world has overcome to become a so-called melting pot, that we are still so divided. By working together, we would create a better future for the Arctic communities.
DeleteMariah D
I think the idea of planting a flag on the bottom of the Arctic is pointless if you don't plan to heavily occupy that area. The fight over land is absurd in itself. The idea that you can own land and essentially have power over others is for the power-hungry. I understand countries do it for resources, but they also exploit the native populations. Sovereignty has been a cruel weapon throughout history that has impacted the lives of those under the leadership. I think it's reasonable for a country to seek resources, but it should follow some type of ethics. Russia claiming part of the sea is a pathway into a war where countries will fight for scraps to get their "fair share". I also think Russia using a ridge in the ocean floor is childish because it is just a way to see if anyone will fight them on it or allow them to weasel into getting more Sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean. I think its good that Canada plans to seek some type of control. I would hope that if they do gain some control, they would allow for some of the Inuit populations to benefit.
ReplyDelete“Claiming” land through the act of placing a flag at the bottom of the ocean is absolutely redundant to me. Placing the flag seems to be a reminder that Russia will fight for what it wants until it gets it, so there is no reason to dispute with them. Even if Russia does not plan to utilize this “land”, Russia needs to seem like the dominant competitor among the top nations, and this is one of their ways of upholding that title, despite knowing that there are indigenous people at risk of losing what little they have left.
ReplyDeleteThis act leads to many more thoughts such as how not all countries distinguish claiming land the same way. How can the United Nations defining owning land one way and other countries another, and it is okay” I know there are plenty of wars over land ownership, but how have we not heard of more disputes because of these issues of defining land ownership?
Amanda Tentoco
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why people these days just think they can do whatever they want just by making a statement like putting a flag in the Arctic. People would just do anything for power. It sad to see this happen when you "claim" land but don't do anything about the land. There are many people in the Arctic that need help and resources but you I doubt they would do anything about it. They would rather have all the power than anything else. With the way that the world is today the big picture is saving the earth. By doing this, you're just ruining it. We should focus on helping the people who need it instead of raising prices so they can't afford it and starve.
Putting a flag at the bottom of the ocean to claim land seems pointless to me. It looks like Russia just wants to show they're strong and won't back down. Even if they don't plan to use that area, they want to be seen as a powerful country among others. But this kind of action can hurt indigenous people who are already struggling to keep what's theirs.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me wonder why countries don't agree on how to claim land. The United Nations has rules, but each country has its own ideas, which could lead to fights over who owns what. Despite fights over land in history, we don't hear about conflicts over these different ideas of land ownership very often.
It's frustrating to see countries claim land without doing anything to help the people living there. Many people in the Arctic need help, but these actions often focus more on power than on helping communities. In today's world, we should be focused on protecting the environment and helping those in need. Instead, these actions could harm both people and the planet.
I am not surprised to hear that the Russian government is doing all in it's power to extend their influence far into the polar seas. Anyone even slightly familiar with current events will be aware of their war of conquest currently happening in Ukraine. This is another aspect of the expansionist vision of Russia's upper military and political class being put into action. I find it very alarming and disheartening that there is little being done to halt the aggressive and violent expansionism, and the fact that global warming is the mechanism which will provide likely millions of dollars in oil refining money is also very troubling. It would be ideal for the UN or some other world government body to condemn or contain the honestly very outdated practice of expanding a nation's territory and influence through warring and colonization. (Let's face it; sailing somewhere, planting a flag and saying you now own that land and it's resources has caused uncountable amounts of suffering throughout human history.) I hope that any money that comes from sub-ocean oil refining can be taxed towards the aid and benefit of native arctic peoples, but I also agree that such an outcome is very unlikely in the current political and economic climate.
ReplyDelete