Michael Byers

International law and the arctic

1. Territory 2. Maritime boundaries 3. Beaufort Sea boundary 4. Extended continental shelves 5. Arctic straits 6. Environmental protection 7. Indigenous peoples 8. Security.

Crossed Lines: The Curious Case of the Beaufort Sea Maritime Boundary Dispute

The Beaufort Sea maritime boundary dispute has traditionally been understood as involving a wedge-shaped area of maritime space that extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles north of the terminus of the Canada-United States border between the Yukon Territory and Alaska. However, new data collected in pursuit of establishing the limits of the extended continental shelf in the region show that the two countries’ seabed resource rights may stretch far beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of the exclusive economic zone. Significantly, at approximately 200 nautical miles from shore, the U.S.-claimed equidistance line crosses the line claimed by Canada, which follows the 141° W meridian, meaning that the legal positions of the two countries if simply extended beyond the EEZ would appear to favor the other party. This article explores how the United States and Canada might seek to reformulate their legal positions to resolve the dispute. Though these reformulated positions might not reduce the area in dispute, they will clarify it and potentially enable the parties to either delimit a single maritime boundary or choose to implement one of a number of creative solutions to the dispute that are outlined in the article.

When US Scholars Speak of 'Sovereignty', What Do They Mean?

The term ‘sovereignty’ figures prominently in international affairs and academic analysis. But does ‘sovereignty’ mean the same thing in different countries and political cultures? In this article, we examine conceptions of sovereignty as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law and those international relations scholars who deal with international law, in order to obtain a clearer picture of what ‘sovereignty’ means in American academic discourse. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: (1) a statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; (2) a popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. On closer examination, what seem to be two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty which elevates the United States above other countries and protects it against outside influences while concurrently maximising its ability to intervene overseas.

The effects of US predominance on the elaboration of treaty regimes and on the evolution of the law of treaties

History shows that it is very generally much more efficient in the long run for States to “apply power within the framework of an institution or legal system,” rather than to resort to raw military force or economic coercion. The most obvious reason for this is that turning a relationship between two or more entities of unequal power which is – ex hypothesi – initially based upon sheer material power into a relationship which enjoys the recognition and protection of the law inevitably legitimizes the factual domination exerted by the more powerful State over the other(s). This transformation entitles the former to resort to the means put at its disposal by the international legal system in order to enforce the – now legal – obligations owed to it by the latter, within the “neutral” framework of international law. The very notions of “force” or “power” are thereby obliterated to a large extent. It thus seems particularly relevant, against this background and in the framework of the present project, to inquire into the possible impact of the supremacy enjoyed by the United States in international relations since the end of the Cold War on the formation of international law through one of its most classical means, the conclusion of treaties. Treaties indeed remain one of the most significant and privileged ways to “produce” international legal norms nowadays.

Canada's F-35 purchase is a costly mistake

The Department of National Defence has determined that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the only jet fighter aircraft that meets its Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR). But the fact that the SOR is not publicly available has stifled debate and precluded a competitive tendering process. In this article, we examine the role currently fulfilled by the CF-18 as well as the possible future missions with which any successor aircraft might be tasked. We also explore the negative impact that stealth technology will have on the performance and mission capable rates of the F-35. We conclude that the F-35 is ill-suited for Canadas needs and recommend a more cautious approach that mixes existing CF-18s with a smaller number of new non-stealth jet fighter aircraft as well as, increasingly, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Toxic splash: Russian rocket stages dropped in Arctic waters raise health, environmental and legal concerns

Russia has dropped rocket stages fuelled with unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) into the Barents Sea and the North Water Polynya—areas of considerable ecological importance—on ten occasions since 2002. The stages come from SS-19 intercontinental missiles that have been re-purposed for launching satellites. UDMH is a highly toxic chemical that has caused widespread health and environmental damage in Kazakhstan and Russia as a result of its extensive use there as a rocket fuel. Not all of the fuel on-board is consumed during a launch and the residual fuel tends to escape the incoming stages and form aerosol clouds that drift over large areas. This dropping of the rocket stages is of considerable concern to the Inuit of Canada and Greenland, who only learned about the practice in 2016. It is also a violation of several treaties as well as customary international law. At least two more launches of UDMH-fuelled rockets on the same trajectory are currently planned—even though alternative non-toxic rocket systems exist.

Unmanned and unnecessary: Canada's proposed procurement of UAVs

Canadas Department of National Defence recently initiated long-term strategies to acquire a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for the Canadian Forces. The aim of the initial project, the Joint Uninhabited Surveillance and Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS), is to procure a fleet of Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs for domestic surveillance, and international operations. This article first examines whether MALE UAVs are necessary and practical for surveillance of Canadas maritime areas and Arctic region. It then discusses the significant legal, ethical and strategic issues associated with the use of armed MALE UAVS and questions whether the costs of acquiring this additional capability outweigh the benefits.

The American Tradition of International Law: Great Expectations, 1789–1914

CHAPTER ONE The English Legacy- The Law of Nations and International Law CHAPTER TWO The Jurists- the International law of Christendom CHAPTER THREE The Lawyers and Judges- International Law in the Courtroom and the Constitution CHAPTER FOUR The Utopians- International Law and World Peace CHAPTER FIVE The Scientists- The Codification and Science of International Law CHAPTER SIX Dreamers and Diplomats- The Promise of International Law