Canadian and American Artic Waters Discusion

So what your trying to illustrate is that the only way to secure a land mass is through conflict? Doesn't that seem a little off to you?

If the World does not "accept" a mass of area as belonging to a country, and that country says otherwise. Then the world can simply use force to claim an area as a "part of the world"?

I'll change my example now to a different, less militarily powerful country for this example.

So what your saying then is that if the international community no longer felt that Africa was recognizable as a "claimed land mass" and felt that Africa should belong to the world. Then they can simply walk in and use force to claim that land as whatever they may want it to be?

By that logic then, boundaries have no relative purpose what so ever anyways. If they are simply meaningless "lines" which the world can change if it so pleases.

That seems quite intrinsically wrong to say however.

No, I didn't say that at all, and you know it.

A border is only a border if acknowledged. If it is not acknowledged, and no-one treats it as a border, then all it is is a worthless line on a map.

Now, it can be acknowledged because people agree it should be a border. Or it might be forcibly acknowledged because those who claim it start shooting at anyone who tries to breach it.

But one way or another, it must be acknowledged, or it has no value.

If no-one simply accepts Canada's claim, and if Canada isn't going to fight for it- then it is not there.

In the insane situations you give, it would not feasably be accepted, nor would the force be used to overcome defence of such borders. So what you say is pretty much irrelevant. But theoretically, yes, if such a situation was either accepted or enforced, then the borders would change. That process is normally called war. War might be unpleasant, but border changes that result are still factual.

Sorry to give you the harsh truth here, but that is how borders work. What is international law anyway? Something that the international community enforces. If it wasn't enforced, it wouldn't have any value either.

There is no higher power that has ultimate discretion of what borders are and are not so. There is only recognition from others.

why are we still using the term land mass........................ice pack is a much better phrase. This is not a landmass AT ALL. Its an icepack and Canada is being silly....................it was said previously that there are resources under these places such as fossil fuels for example..................maybe, however to say you OWN 200 MILES of water around your coast is assinine.

No, I didn't say that at all, and you know it.

A border is only a border if acknowledged. If it is not acknowledged, and no-one treats it as a border, then all it is is a worthless line on a map.

Now, it can be acknowledged because people agree it should be a border. Or it might be forcibly acknowledged because those who claim it start shooting at anyone who tries to breech it.

But one way or another, it must be acknowledged, or it has no value.

If no-one simply accepts Canada's claim, and if Canada isn't going to fight for it- then it is not there.

In the insane situations you give, it would not feasably be accepted, nor would the force be used to overcome defence of such borders. So what you say is pretty much irrelevant. But theoretically, yes, if such a situation was either accepted or enforced, then the borders would change. That process is normally called war. War might be unpleasant, but border changes that result are still factual.

Sorry to give you the harsh truth here, but that is how borders work. What is international law anyway? Something that the international community enforces. If it wasn't enforced, it wouldn't have any value either.

There is no higher power that has ultimate discretion of what borders are and are not so. There is only recognition from others.

Yes I realise that. However, you are still indeed saying that the only real way to even have a border is if you can defend it militarily (forcefully)? Correct? War does indeed change borders, obviously. So then technically if the US decided to declare war on Canada for this area. Then this area is indeed being recognized as an area claimed by Canada. And when the Americans beat us (which they would) then they would own that area.

But thats not what this discussion is about. Its about if that area should belong to anyone at all. Who decides that? The international community naturally. So this isn't a Canada/ US fight. Its a Canada/ International community fight. Unless the US did declare war on Canada. Which would verify that Canada did indeed have claim to it in the first place.

Otherwise who are they going to fight? No one? Or the Whole world? Who defends International property?

No, this example is nothing to do with war, it is to do with being able to enforce what you say your borders are.

The situation would be like this- the US tries to send a ship through the Northwest Passage. The Canadians would send ships to stop it, if they decided to enforce. The US would send more and better ships to stop the enforcement.

Now, if this had been a land based matter over, say, Alberta, at THIS point the international community- which recognises the Albertan borders- would cry foul, and all matter of legal, diplomatic and potentially military measures would be used to in turn enforce that border on Canada's behalf. Why? because it is accepted.

But in this case, virtually NO-ONE accepts it. So the international community would just say that Canada had no right trying to stop the ship anyway and got what it deserved.

In real life, of course, I rate it very unlikely that Canada would try to stop the ship in the first place.

Hence, I say again, the claim is not recognised, it's not going to be backed, so it's not going to work.

You say all borders require force? Only ultimately- you don't need to defend it yourself if it is internationally accepted, because others will do it for you- politically, economically, legally, and as a last resort, militarily.. Much of Europe works on that basis.

This one ISN'T internationally accepted, so Canada would have to use force, and no-one else will accept that, and Canada would have to back down.

I am sorry to say that Canada will just have to accept that they have never convinced anyone of this one and hence it is a doomed venture. Even Denmark is contesting Canadian sovereignty in that area.

Canada has pretty much lost this one.

Oh yes, I agree, realistically you are correct. I do know this.

But that still means that technically then world chooses who lives and who dies. (the Africa example) And there seems to be an inherent flaw with that line of thinking. It is the way that it is. But there is something very intrinsically wrong about it.

Borders need recognition from the world community to be considered real. But what if the border of something (Africa) was not recognized anymore as valid? Then they mean nothing. So then the only people that do not have a say in what is theirs are the people who actually "own" it.

This thought goes against a persons (mine at the very least) natural intuition of what is right and what seems to be not right.

I know that is how the world works. But it seems flawed, and yet at the same time it seems to be the only feasible way to do things. A sort of intuitive vs. realistic conflict emerges.

You'll have to excuse me, I tend to argue in a formal sense. I am a Logic major and I do logic constantly. Therefore I have a natural urge to forget the actual reality from arguments and simply look at them as valid or unvalid.

You are valid realistically. But there is definitely something wrong with your argument otherwise. That is why I have trouble accepting it. Its a mental contradiction of empirical truth vs. intuitive normative truth.

But I do agree. I doubt Canada will ACTUALLY do anything anyways.

But I argue for the sake of arguing. 😛

No, I am afraid it is simply your perception of borders that is at fault. The realistic way is also the actual way- borders have no intrinsic existence beyond their acceptance. I do realise people tend to find this counter-intuitive, but that's only because, having lived with them since birth, they tend to see borders as being like land features- permanent, a part of nature. They are not- they are a factor of human perception. They have no value at all beyond that which is accepted.

I might also add that if Canada really wanted to come down hard on this issue they might:

a. Go on a diplomatic effort to convince others. Because right now, Canada just keeps stating that they own it, and no-one else believes them.

b. Actually get some military vessels that can work in Arctic waters. Because even Denmark has some, and Canada doesn't look like much of an Arctic power if they don't.

The new PM wants to send more forces there. But what is this? Is Canada really going to go down that route? I doubt it.

Look at what gives Canada its global reputation. People see it is a mature, intelligent and reasonable country. Canada does not have a large military (though it does have a proud one) and pretty much defines itself by NOT following the US model of total enforcement.

Headlines reading "Canada uses armed force to halt civilian vessel in waters no-one else thinks it owns" hardly does that image any favours.

Canada has historically takne a reasoned approach of words. But if you do that, you have to accept that if you lose the war of words, you lose it all, because you then don't have the force to back it up. If the new administration wants to turn Canada into a military power as well... then I guess things will change, though I would guess more readily that it would be the adminstration that gets the boot pretty fast.

Canada has lost this war of words, and I think this is an apt demonstration of the true nature of borders.

So I am afraid by any definition of truth, this is so. And when the US ambassador stated that they were international waters... I am afraid he was simply stating a fact recognised by all save Canada itself.

You repeated exactly what I said in my previous post.

Just longer.

To me, this is

Its a mental contradiction of empirical truth vs. intuitive normative truth.

Unfortunately, the empirical truth wins this battle.

But it necessarily shouldn't win.

This is the flaw of Logical argument. There is something obviously wrong about this "truth" and yet it is true because it must be.

Seriously, can't we just share?

Canada is like America's more mature brother, even if they deny it or dislike it, we're close and we need each other.

And like brothers, we fight all the time and make fun of each other but if anyone else tries to fight we back each other up 100%. Like 911.

This Water situation won't change that one bit, would it?

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
You repeated exactly what I said in my previous post.

Just longer.

To me, this is

Unfortunately, the empirical truth wins this battle.

But it necessarily shouldn't win.

This is the flaw of Logical argument. There is something obviously wrong about this "truth" and yet it is true because it must be.

It's not even a battle. What was intuitive wasn't even truth. There isn't anythying wrong with this at all.