Northern imperatives : How may the continued US non-ratification of the UNCLOS be explained and to what extent may the Northwest Passage dispute be understood in conjunction?

• Main Author: Runesson, Andreas
• Other Authors: Arild Underdal
• Format: Master Thesis
• Language: English
• Published: 2010
• Subjects: VDP::240; Canada; Northwest Passage; Northwest passage
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10852/12938; http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-25286

This thesis takes the reader up north and out to sea, so to speak. More specifically, it deals with the continued US non-ratification of the UNCLOS and the dispute with Canada over the legal status of the Northwest Passage. I ask the following questions: (1) Given that the issue is not a partisan one and that the US secured important concessions in the `94 Agreement, why has it nevertheless not yet ratified the UNCLOS? (2) What role can the Northwest Passage dispute be said to have played? (3) Going forward, what are the prospects of change? A two-fold theoretical construct is employed. Firstly, the perceived relevance of the three I`s; interests, ideology and identity. And secondly, the complex interdependence theory developed by Keohane & Nye. I will hopefully have shown how the innate conflict and tension within US foreign policy bears its interesting face in the field of ocean policy. Although a vast majority in the US is in favor of ratifying the UNCLOS, a small but adamant segment have thus far succeeded in stalling what has long been seen as an obvious development. And they have done so by invoking and playing off facets of the American sense of self – strong forces which have got more to do with identity and ideology than that of material interests. As such, the Reagan years are employed as an exemplifying era. Although the Northwest Passage dispute cannot be expected to lead the US to ratify, it is evident that the US has a good hand in the quarrel with Canada and would benefit from being able to use and point to the UNCLOS as a full-fledged member.