Volume 14 Issue 2 October 2015
Theme for this month
On the issues of land ownership and sovereignty within Global Community, and their applications in the Artic.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Ecology
- Sovereignty and land ownership
- Earth governance and management
- Ethics
- The Commons
- History of the Artic
- Canada custodianship to the world
- The Artic Council: Canada, Denmark, Findland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, United States
- Economics to protect natural resources
- Global Protection Agency (GPA) and security
- Earth Court of Justice
- Conclusion
Background research for this paper: historical facts, principles, standards, articles, new ways of doing things, issues, new world vision, etc.
Land ownership within Global Community
- Who owns the Earth?
- What is Global Community?
- Glass Bubble concept of a Global Community.
- Criteria for a global community to exist.
- The Commons.
- The Scale of Global Rights prioritizes the Commons to save all life on Earth.
- The global life-support systems are the Commons with the highest priorities.
- Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the Scale of Global Rights defines the Commons with the highest priorities.
- Earth governance.
- Global Ministries.
- Becoming a global citizen.
- Building communities for all life on Earth.
- Criteria for land sovereignty within Global Community.
- Creation of a new nation through the process of the Earth Court of Justice.
- On the decision making process and leadership in the world.
- Leadership concerning the Syrian refugee crisis.
On the ownership of the Artic region, and its protection.
Natural resources of the Artic region.
Canada Northwest Passage geographical site
History of the Northwest Passage
Dispute over Hans Island
Canada - United States Northwest Passage water dispute
Canada sovereignty of the Northwest Passage.
Russia sovereignty of the Artic region.
Enironmental protection of the Artic region.
Ocean ethics.
North America security and strategic issues.
Requirements of an international sea waterway.
Management of the Northwest Passage.
The Canadian Inuit Community and Nunavut.
The Falklands War, also called the Falklands Conflict/Crisis, was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the disputed Falkland Islands
Promoting the creation of new human settlements in Nunavut
Russia claims North Pole by planting a flag on seabed August 2, 2007
Website of Global Community of Nunavit.
No one could own the Moon, planet Mars, or the Americas just by going there and back.
No one could own Mount Everest in the Himalayas just by climbing to the top
Letter to all Canadians concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut
Letter to the Honourable Paul Okalik, Premier of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut
The Earth, and all its natural resources, are owned by Global Community, along with all the "global communities" contained therein
Global Community of North America (GCNA)
To create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources.
GCNA Global Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre (GERRC)
Global Protection Agency (GPA).
Agency of Global Police (AGP).
Who owns the Earth? Movement for taxation of all Earth natural resources.
Deep integration of Canada by the United States.
Maps
Today, the impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. A few people have control over so much of the Earth. Our democracy is no longer based on equal rights to the Earth and its natural resources. This causes a fundamental threat to democracy. What has become of democracy? What has become "we the people? " To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must be based on the principle of equal rights to the Earth.
We need to take a giant step forward to a new form of democracy.
How the Earth should be owned is the major economic question of this time. The world should be owned not just by the people living in it but by all life on Earth.
Can the world become a better place to live in? Of course! The means of great change are at our fingertips. With the aid of the telephone, radio, TV, computers and web sites we can inspire a new global support for opinion that will enable us to harvest Earth's bounty. Let us all act together! Let us launch a global campaign for the restoration and renewal of our planet and ourselves as one humanity. Let us promote the creative actions and the ideas that are healing and nurturing people and planet.
The old concept of a community being the street where we live in and surrounded by a definite geographical and political boundary has originated during the Roman Empire period. An entire new system of values was then created to make things work for the Roman Empire. Humanity has lived with this concept over two thousand years. Peoples from all over the world are ready to kill anyone challenging their border. They say that this is their land, their property, their 'things'. This archaic concept is endangering humanity and its survival. The Roman Empire has gone but its culture is still affecting us today. We need to let go the old way of thinking. We need to learn of the new concept, and how it can make things work in the world.
The core concept needed by Global Community for a better tomorrow is to manage our planet, to take charge and take care of our planet with fair benefits for all. To accomplish this, four major responsibilities need to be addressed: Ecology, sovereignty and land ownership, Earth governance and management, and ethics.
Global Community has been promoting this new vision of a more sustainable democracy.
Let us remind everyone the definition of Global Community that has been guiding us throughout the previous global dialogues: 
"Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below. It is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is all life forms on Earth."
This definition includes all people, all life on Earth. And life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does SoulLife, also named the Soul of all Life, Soul of Humanity or God’s Spirit. By extension, the expression Global Community includes the entire Universe, space and time, all matter, galaxies, dark matter, all particles and all unknown parts of the Universe yet to be discovered. Again, Global Community also includes all Souls, God’s Spirit, and that makes it different than just saying Global Community is the Universe, or that God is the Universe. God is everywhere within the Universe and beyond, elsewhere. Guiding Souls serving God are always helping the formation of Life in all places and times. Global Community ethics embrace the process of understanding what is truly important for humanity’s survival on our planet, and that is the Scale of Global Rights which give Peoples the moral foundation for a better individual and community. Global Community ethical grounds are practical, real, and applicable for all women and men of good will, religious and non-religious.
That is the fundamental definition of the expression "Global Community".
The definition of Global Community concept is truly the 21st century "philosophy of life" framework, some called it the religion of the third millennium, others called it the politics of the future generations now. 
It also implicitly says that no one in particular on our planet owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth, and so does the Soul of all Life, the Soul of Humanity.
Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities. We the Peoples, Global Community, are reaffirming faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and smalll. We the Peoples implies every individual on Earth. Earth management and good governance is now a priority and a duty of every responsible person on Earth. We will establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and we promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
Global Community has proposed a new democratic mandate recognizing that the land, the air, oil and natural gas, minerals, all other natural resources
rightly belong to Global Community. The Earth is our birthright and our common heritage. What we make from our mental and physical labor can rightfully be held as individual property but the profit of the Earth should be shared by all life. The unjust and inequitable ownership of the land and of all other natural resources has caused the great majority of local-to-global conflicts and wars, and the global warming of our planet. Our global life-support systems are under threat.
Following this thinking we see land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.
A global symbiotical relationship is created between nations and Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world.
To speak of enforceable Global Law 
is to speak of world power. Global Parliament 
has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose.
Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. Global Community must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. And these needs are the global commons that have always existed throughout humanity history. They are the primordial human rights on the Scale of Global Rights. 
For our survival as Global Community, and as a collective intelligence, we need to learn about ecological dangers we face, their causes, and how to render them harmless. We all have a strong moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth. Local, community-based economies are crucial for the well-being of our children and to make community a reality.
The Earth's ecological problems stem largely from our collective failure to share. It is now increasingly evident that only by sharing the world's resources more equitably and sustainably will we be able to address both the ecological and social crisis we face as a Global Community.
A first priority is protection and care of the environment and natural resources, including creatures large and small. Everyone should be encouraged to think and act as an Earth manager and support an Earth care initiative. At this moment global warming is a major problem. Everyone should seek to reduce its causes, and everyone can further these goals by thinking and acting as an Earth manager and by joining in the observance of one great global holiday: Life Day Celebration on May 26 of each year 
.
Global Community found evident that the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings. The stewardship of the ecological base has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem. Vital interests of future generations have to
be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. Supply chains have to be designed in a way, that the goods can enter after usage or consumption into natural or industrial recycling processes. If serious damages to persons, animals, plants and the ecosystem cannot be excluded, an action or pattern of behaviour should be refrained from. A measure for supplying goods or services should choose a path which entails the least possible impact on the ecological and social system concerned. This way functioning proven systems will not be disturbed, and unnecessary risks will not be taken. Supply strategies consuming less resources should have preference before those enhancing more resource consumption. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.
We are all members of Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No persons have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No persons have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through community rights and global commons. They are the primordial human rights on the Scale of Global Rights. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control.
Earth rights are ecological rights and the rights that Global Community has in protecting the global life-support systems. Earth rights are those rights that demonstrate the connection between human well-being and a sound environment. They include individuals and global communities human rights and the rights to a clean environment, and participation in development decisions. We define ecological rights as those rights of the ecosystem of the Earth beyond human purpose. They are those rights that protect and preserve the ecological heritage of the Earth, a global commons, for future generations.
The biggest challenge for social democracy today is to articulate coherent policies based on a unifying vision for society.
The astonishing beauty of the Artic is itself a natural resource. Natural resources must be protected. Glaciers are made of the purest drinking waters on Earth. There is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. Everyone of those communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth which is why Global Community has created a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources.
Climate change is a result of the rising global temperatures associated with global warming, the effects of which have a direct impact on fragile ecosystems. It is contributing to the melting of the polar ice caps and that will open ge to increased shipping activity.
The important issue of climate change is causing conflicts over the Artic region to become a global problem requiring all Peoples on Earth to participate in the debate, and to come up with an action plan to save all life on Earth. The risks deriving from the warming-up of the earth can very well be illustrated with data on the situation in the Arctic. If the whole ice sheet covering Greenland today were to melt, this would result in a 7 meter rise in sea levels worldwide. Greenland’s glaciers for instance have accelerated the speed at which they flow towards the sea along the country’s coast. The Arctic ice sheet has lost a reported 15 percent of its surface over the last thirty years, and 40 percent of its thickness. Both indigenous hunters and animals which depend on the ice sheet for their habitat suffer in consequence. Considered to be the symbol of the Arctic, the ice bear is threatened with extinction in the short term.
Another way Arctic warming could have worldwide consequences is through its influence on permafrost. Permanently frozen soils worldwide contain 1400-1700 Gigatons of carbon, about four times more than all the carbon emitted by human activity in modern times. A 2008 study found that a period of abrupt sea-ice loss could lead to rapid soil thaw that would result to an annual carbon emissions which could amount to 15-35 percent of today’s yearly emissions from human activities.
An even more critical source of greenhouse gases is the methane in the seabed of the Arctic Ocean. These so-called clathrates contain an estimated 1400 Gigatons of methane, a more potent though shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Methane clathrate, a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure, remains stable under a combination of high pressure and low temperature. At a depth of 50 meters or less the East Siberian Arctic Shelf contains the shallowest methane clathrate deposits, and is thus most vulnerable to rising water temperatures. Current methane concentrations in the Arctic already average about 1.90 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years.
Beside the global warming of the planet, there is another factor that contributes to warming of the waters in the Arctic, and it is the increase in discharge rates from melting glaciers. This runoff is much warmer than the Arctic Ocean water. The net result is a slight warming of the Arctic Ocean waters and a dilution of salinity.
Global climate change is rapidly advancing, melting glaciers, eroding soil, causing freak and increasingly wild storms, and displacing untold millions from rural communities to live in desperate poverty in urban slums. Almost every human victim lives in the global South, in communities not responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. The atmosphere has already warmed up almost a full degree in the last several decades and a new Canadian study reports that we may be on course to add another 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.
Half the tropical forests in the world – the lungs of our ecosystems – are gone; by 2030, at the current rate of harvest, only 10% will be left standing. Ninety percent of the big fish in the sea are gone, victim to fishing practices. Half the world’s wetlands – the kidneys of our ecosystems – were destroyed in the 20th century. Species extinction is taking place at a rate one thousand times greater than before humans existed. We are headed toward a biodiversity deficit in which species and ecosystems will be destroyed at a rate faster than Nature can create new ones.
We are polluting our lakes, rivers and streams to death. Every day, 2 million tons of sewage and industrial and agricultural waste are discharged into the world’s water, the equivalent of the weight of the entire human population of 6.8 billion people. The amount of wastewater produced annually is about six times more water than exists in all the rivers of the world. A comprehensive new global study recently reported that 80% of the world’s rivers are now in peril, affecting 5 billion people on the planet.
We are also mining our groundwater far faster than nature can replenish it, sucking it up to grow water-guzzling chemical-fed crops in deserts or to water thirsty cities that dump an astounding 200 trillion gallons of land-based water as waste in the oceans every year. The global mining industry sucks up another 200 trillion gallons, which it leaves behind as poison. Fully one third of global water withdrawals are now used to produce biofuels, enough water to feed the world. The rate of depletion has more than doubled in the last half century. If water was drained as rapidly from the Great Lakes, they would be bone dry in 80 years.
The global water crisis is the greatest ecological and human threat humanity has ever faced. As vast areas of the planet are becoming desert as we suck the remaining waters out of living ecosystems and drain remaining aquifers in India, China, Australia, most of Africa, all of the Middle East, Mexico, Southern Europe, US Southwest and other places. Dirty water is the biggest killer of children; every day more children die of water borne disease than HIV/AIDS, malaria and war together. In the global South, dirty water kills a child every three and a half seconds. And it is getting worse, fast. By 2030, global demand for water will exceed supply by 40%— an astounding figure foretelling of terrible suffering.
Knowing there will not be enough food and water for all in the near future, wealthy countries and global investment, pension and hedge funds are buying up land and water, fields and forests in the global South, creating a new wave of invasive colonialism that will have huge geo-political ramifications. Rich investors have already bought up an amount of land double the size of the United Kingdom in Africa alone.
While telling lies about caring for the Earth, most of our governments are deepening the crisis with new plans for expanded resource exploitation, unregulated free trade deals, more invasive investment, the privatization of absolutely everything and unlimited growth. This model of development is literally killing the planet.
Unlimited growth assumes unlimited resources, and this is the reason of the crisis. In order to feed the increasing demands of our consumer based system, society has seen Nature as a great resource for our personal convenience and profit, not as a living ecosystem from which all life springs. So we have built our economic and development policies assuming either that Nature would never fail to provide or that, where it does fail, technology will save the day.
The support of false solutions such as carbon markets, which, in effect, privatize the atmosphere by creating a new form of property rights over natural resources. Carbon markets are predicated less on reducing emissions than on the desire to make carbon cuts as cheap as possible for large corporations.
Another false solution is the move to turn water into private property, which can then be hoarded, bought and sold on the open market. The latest proposals are for a water pollution market, similar to carbon markets, where companies and countries will buy and sell the right to pollute water. With this kind of privatization comes a loss of public oversight to manage and protect watersheds. Commodifying water renders an earth-centred vision for watersheds and ecosystems unsustainable.
Then there is Payment for Ecological Services (PES), which puts a price tag on ecological goods – clean air, water, soil etc, – and the services such as water purification, crop pollination and carbon sequestration that sustain them. A market model of PES is an agreement between the “holder” and the “consumer” of an ecosystem service, turning that service into an environmental property right. Clearly this system privatizes nature, be it a wetland, lake, forest plot or mountain, and sets the stage for private control of Nature by those wealthy enough to be able to buy, sell and trade it. Already, northern hemisphere governments and private corporations are studying public/private/partnerships to set up lucrative PES projects in the global South. Governments need to realize that market-based mechanisms and the commodification of biodiversity have failed biodiversity conservation.
The notion that inequitable access can be dealt with by finding more money to pump more groundwater is based on a misunderstanding that assumes unlimited supply, when in fact humans everywhere are overpumping groundwater supplies. Similarly, the hope that communities will cooperate in the restoration of their water systems when they are desperately poor and have no way of conserving or cleaning the limited sources they use is a cruel fantasy. The ecological health of the planet is intricately tied to the need for a just system of water distribution.
Fighting for equitable water in a world running out means taking better care of the water we have, not just finding supposedly endless new sources. We are also deeply concerned of the trade and development policies of the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the World Water Council.
Here is the simplest fact: we are critically polluting our oceans. Already, the massive atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases from the burning of non-Arctic fossil fuels has caused a rise in sea surface temperature of 1 degree Centigrade over the past 140 years. This may not seem impressive, but much of this increase has occurred during the past few decades. As a result, there has been a potentially catastrophic 40% decline, largely since 1950, in the phytoplankton that support the whole marine food chain.
What happens there will also affect us in frightening ways. The rapid disintegration and melting of Arctic icebergs, glaciers, and sea ice is projected to raise global sea levels, threatening coastal cities across the world. And the melting of the Arctic permafrost and of frozen areas of the seafloor is likely to release huge amounts of methane (about 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) that will be catastrophic for the planet.
If we are to protect our oceans, the public must be engaged. If our children and grandchildren are to experience the excitement of seeing blue whales breach and feed, we better get busy.
For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its 2-mile-thick (3.2-kilometer) center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.
On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet naturally melts. Some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet, and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.
We need a basic clarification on the concept of "land ownership", starting with the principle that the land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally as a birthright to everyone.
Planet Earth is humanity's inheritance. The land, water, air, and the wonderful bounty of natural resources were not human made. Everyone, all lifeforms, has a common right and ownership to their uses. We must recognize the rightful claim of every person to inherit an equitable portion of Earth's natural bounty. That is humanity common heritage.
Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property or a commodity. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to all natural resources. A condition of "ownership" of any particular landsite or natural resource is payment of the fee back to the community as a whole. This fee is the proper source of public finance for the needs of the community.
Global Community concept of ownership states that land
and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone as a birthright. Products and services created by individuals
are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by groups of individuals are properly viewed as collective property.
Only Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. And so, all the Earth natural resources belong to Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life.
On the other hand, soveveignty is the status of a person or group of persons having supreme and independent political authority. The concept of sovereignty is related to the concept of power: power over a territory, land and water, oil and minerals, as well as life on Earth. The United Nations (UN) cannot have normal attributes of sovereignty, which has been defined around a territory and population.
The issue here is not that of populations and boundary lines, but of the demarcation of power and control over the Earth that is the foremost formal attribute of sovereignty. Therefore, Global Community sovereignty has sovereignty over the Earth.
With sovereignty one can speak of citizenship. Global Community Citizenship is offered to anyone who accepts the Criteria of Global Community Citizenship as a way of life. It is time now to take the oath of global community citizenship. We all belong to this greater whole, the Earth, the only known place in the universe we can call our home.
Before you make your decision, we are asking you to read very carefully the Criteria of Global Community Citizenship, make sure you understand every part of the criteria, and then make the oath of belonging to Global Community, the human family.
You do not need to let go the citizenship you already have. No! You can still be a citizen of any nation on Earth. The nation you belong to can be called 'a global community'. It should be your local global community. But you are a better human being as you belong also to Global Community, and you have now higher values to live a life, to sustain yourself and all life on the planet.
You have become a person with a heart, a mind and Soul of the same as that of Global Community.
Global Community welcomes you!
Criteria to obtain Global Community Citizenship
1. Acceptance of the rights
and responsibilities of a person belonging to 'a global community' and to 'Global Community', the human family. That is, to take such a stand has four parts:
a) I am not just a woman, I am a person, I am citizen of a Global Community,
b) I am not just a man, I am a person, I am citizen of a Global Community,
c) We are responsible, accountable and equal persons in every way and,
d) We are citizens of Global Community, the human family.
We need to take this stand for the survival of our species.
2. Acceptance of the concept of 'a global community'. The concept of 'a global community' is part of the Glass Bubble concept of a Global Community. The concept was first researched and developed by the Global Community Organization (ECO) and was summarized on Global Community website. Then it was further researched and developed by Global Community and results obtained were published by Global Community in its February 2003 Newsletter.
We have already said that 'a global community' is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. A typical global community may be what a group of people, together, wants it to be. It can be a group of people with the same values. It can be a group of people with the same cultural background, or the same religious background. One could think of a typical global community of a million people that does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. The people making a global community may be living in many different locations on the planet. It can be a village, or two villages together where people have decided to unite as one Global Community. The two villages may be found in different parts of the world. It can be a town, a city, or a nation. It can be two or more nations together.
We can no longer perceive ourselves as a People who could survive alone and a People who does not need anyone else. We belong and depend to this much larger group, that of Global Community. The 21st Century will see limitless links and symbiotical relationships with and within Global Community. A global symbiotical relationship between two or more nations, or between two or more global communities, can have trade as the major aspect of the relationship or it can have as many other aspects as agreed by the people involved. The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development.The emphasis of a global symbiotical relationship is not so much on how much money a nation should have or how high a GDP should
be although money can be made a part of the relationship. We all know developed countries live off developing countries so the emphasis has no need to stress out the profit a rich nation is making off a poor nation. The emphasis of the relationship should give more importance to the other aspects such as quality of life, protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems, the entrenchment of the Scale of Global Rights and the Global Constitution into our ways of life, justice, peace, cultural and spiritual freedom, security, and many other important aspects as described in the global ministries (health, agriculture, energy, trade, resources, etc.).
3. Acceptance of the Scale of Global Rights.
To determine rights requires an understanding of needs and reponsibilities and their importance. The Scale of Global Rights and the Constitution of Global Community were researched and developed by Global Community to guide us in continuing this process. The Scale shows social values in order of importance and so will help us understand the rights and responsibilities of global communities.
Scale of Global Rights
* Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems
* Primordial human rights
* The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations
* Community rights and the right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically
* Economic rights (business and consumer rights, and their responsibilities and accountabilities) and social rights (civil and political rights)
* Cultural rights and religious rights4. Accptance of the Global Constitution. The Global Constitution is a declaration of interdependence and responsibility and an urgent call to build a global symbiotical relationship between nations for sustainable development. It is a commitment to Life and its evolution to bring humanity to God. Global Community has focused people aspirations toward a unique goal: humanity survival now and in the future along with all Life on Earth. The "Belief, Values, Principles and Aspirations of the New Age" of the Constitution are closely interrelated. Together they provide a conception of sustainable development and set forth fundamental guidelines for achieving it; they were drawn from international law, science, philosophy, religion, and they
were discussed as research papers during the global dialogues.5. Acceptance of your birth right of electing a democratic
government to manage Earth. The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone and to anyone or to any Global Community. Every global community can and should choose the political system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the Scale of Global Rights. On the other hand, representatives to Global Community must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and allow verification by Global Community ) that representatives to Global Community have been elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect representatives to form Global Community.
6. Acceptance of the Earth Court of Justice as the highest Court on Earth. 
Global Community is promoting the settling of disputes between nations through the process of the Earth Court of Justice. Justice for all is what we want. Justice withour borders! The Earth Court of Justice will hear cases involving crimes related to the global ministries. It will have the power to rule on cases involving crimes related to each one of the ministries.
All people on Earth have been wondering what will it take to create and obtain a global community citizenship that is based on fundamental principles and values of Global Community. Now is time to enact your dream! It is time because humanity has no time to waste as we have done in the past. It is time to be what we are meant to become to save us and all life along with us. It is time to be citizens of the Earth. It is time to gather our forces and to stand for our global values, the only humane values that can save humanity and life on the planet from extinction.
You may be eligible to become a citizen of Global Community.
To become a citizen of Global Community you may be:
* a person
* a global community
* an institution
* a town, city or province
* a state or a nation
* a business
* an NGO
* a group of people who decided to unite for the better of everyone participating in the relationship, or you may be
* an international organization
Global Community Citizenship is given to anyone who accepts the Criteria of Global Community Citizenship as a way of life. It is time now to take the oath of global community citizenship. We all belong to this greater whole, the Earth, the only known place in the universe we can call our home.
Before you make your decision, we are asking you to read very carefully the Criteria of Global Community Citizenship, make sure you understand every part of the criteria, and then make the oath of belonging to Global Community, the human family.
You do not need to let go the citizenship you already have. No! You can still be a citizen of any nation on Earth. The nation you belong to an be called 'a global community'. But you are a better human being as you belong also to Global Community, and you have now higher values to live a life, to sustain yourself and all life on the planet.
You have become a person with a heart, a mind and Soul of the same as that of Global Community.
Global Community welcomes you!
A global community citizen could travel the world with Global Community citizenship and work in nations where the citizenship is obtained.
Global Community would conduct the proper investigation concerning the security aspects of Global Community citizen requesting the citizenship and also be responsible for the legitimacy of the application for the citizenship. A citizenship could have several different applications depending of the request:
a) work permit
b) short visit
c) volunteer work
A very important legislation is the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act which was approved by Global Parliament, define rights, responsibility and accountability of all global citizens. Each and everyone of us will make decisions, deal with one another, and basically conduct our actions as per the Act.
Recognizing a person as a "sovereign citizen" therefore is affirming global citizenship as its social/political/economic corollary.
The definition of "sovereignty" is a political choice. As we humans are all "planetary citizens" by virtue of the collapse of time and distance in the present century via technology and electronics, our claim to sovereignty is not only legitimate but critical for survival itself.
Earth is finite and, therefore, both population growth and economic activity must reach a limit in the very near future. Earth cannot and will not support continued population and/or economic growth. Humanity requires continual and never ending economic and population growth, in direct conflict with nature's finite resources.
In the current economic crisis almost every country and probably all the industrialized countries have taken steps to stimulate their economies without making a determination as to what level of economic activity is best for the long term survival of humankind. While many people understand that population growth must cease if humanity is to survive, no action has been taken on a world-wide basis which will insure that population growth is reduced to zero. Earth cannot and will not wait even twenty years before the horrible destruction of humanity commences.
Peoples believe that everyone should have the right to reproduce even though many individuals are genetically deficient and don’t have the necessary skills to function in the environment occupied by humanity. This belief is based on two erroneous concepts:
1) morality and
2) the inability of humanity to determine the skills which are necessary for survival and reproduction.
In reality, Nature has very little to do with humanity's morality and humanity's inability to determine the necessary skills to function and reproduce. Nature will do for our species as nature has always done: by violence and death. Except in this case Nature has weapons of mass destruction which were created by humanity. Nature will not merely cause death and destruction by disease, starvation, predation and the other horrors it used in the past to determine who will survive to reproduce, Nature will cause the determination to be made by ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, wars gang raping to death millions of women and other horrors beyond our imagination.
While in the past Nature destroyed the vast numbers of species, that destruction has usually occurred over an extended period of time. Nature now has weapons of mass destruction which can kill billions of our species almost instantaneously.
Accountable government is what humanity needs. Global Community deserves nothing less.
Every aspect of humanity society will have to be evaluated and most likely changed. Every aspect of morality, charity, government, religion, politics, philosophy, etc. will have to be evaluated and revised in almost an instant of time. That is the problem facing humanity.
Every single human being must deal responsibly with the affairs going on in his (her) own 'global community' ~ when a person takes personal responsibility for his own affairs ~ he becomes empowered as a person. He can then reach beyond his own property and family, and help to work with others living in and around, even a part of the local community he lives in ~ the villages, the town community, the surrounding territory, and so on.
The key is personal responsibility. Therefore the individual is the important element, one who takes responsibility for his Community. This individual cares about jobs, homes, streets, the welfare and success of his Community. 
Global Community had no other choice than to research and develop a proper system of governance for all of humanity.
Global Community has established the criteria of 'a global community of a million people'. 
There is no need of having a piece of land at all costs.
It is best for humanity and the increasing world population to see ourselves as people living together or far apart but in constant communication with each other. A community has no boundaries except of those of the heart, mind and Soul. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul (a global community), and as part of a community with the same. You should seek forming a Global Government (GG) with nations of similar beliefs and interests. We should seek to de-centralize the U.N. by creating GGs. 
Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic.
The number of people making a typical global community becomes important when a democratic election to elect representatives to Global Community is going on. The voting system of Global Community is very simple and practical. One representative per million people. A global community of 300 million people would have three hundred representatives.
And that is the major problem with Nunavut, Canada North. The Inuit people are trying very hard to keep control over a territory that is much too large and important for other nations. It is not possible to claim ownership of Nunavut when it was never yours except in your dreams. It is like putting a flag on the Moon and say the Moon is all yours. Or going to Mars and say Mars is all yours. No one owns the Moon or Mars, or the Earth. No one ever did! And no one ever will! All you can say is that you put a flag on the Moon. Nothing more, nothing less! It is also like going on top of Mount Everest in the Himalayas. Just by climbing to the top does not give you ownership of the mountain.
Here are important questions to ask ourselves.
Does planting a titanium flag of Russia on the seabed gives Russia ownerhsip of any kind? Is that not like putting a flag on the Moon or on Mount Everest? The answer is no. Russia does not own whatever they claim they do own.
Does mapping the ocean floor gives you ownership of the land nearby? No it does not.
Just because you put a flag on the Moon means you own the Moon. It just does not work that way.
A dog, a bear, a wolf, and many other life species, leave 'something' at the bottom of a tree, a bush, a building, a park bench, but this does not mean the life species owns the
tree, the forest, the park, the building or the town. People can leave a flag or whatever else, but that does not mean they own the Moon, planet Mars, Nunavut or Greenland.
As a more obvious example, let us assume that, sometimes in the future, the Chinese government decides to send a rocket to planet Mars with one person on board. Now the rocket lands safely on the planet and the person on board of the rocket place in the ground a stick with the Chinese flag on top. The questions to be asked: Does that means that the person owns the planet? Does the Chinese government owns the planet?
Global Community perspective is very clear neither the person on board or the Chinese government can claim ownership or sovereignty. Only a community already established in place can claim ownership and sovereignty. If there were Martians, native inhabitants of the planet Mars, near the site where the rocket landed, and the pilot from Earth started to kill Aboriginals, does that means the pilot or the Chinese government owns planet Mars? Of course not! It means the pilot is a killer, a murderer, or a genocider. Now if planet Mars was the North American continent at the time of Christopher Columbus, year 1492 when his little sailboat arrived on the coast, and years afterwards after the Europeans arrived in groups, does that means they owned the Americas? Does that means their governments owned the Americas? No it does not! It means they were killers, murderers and genociders.
Global Community "Criteria for sovereignty and ownership" is very clear on those issues. Let us explore their meanings. First the Criteria will be defined, and then other issues will be discussed: various laws, treaties, and legislation that have been enacted over the centuries following colonization of the continent. June 2014 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the ownership of the ancestral lands, and title, of the aboriginal populations will also be discussed in the light of the Criteria.
Criteria for sovereignty and ownership
Global Community has established the criteria of 'a global community of a million people'.
Criteria for sovereignty
- a global community is in place
- a typical community has a population of one million people
- the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living
- the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Global Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems
- a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and Global Community
- a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life
- Earth management and taxation of all Earth natural resources
The definition of sovereignty helps in understanding Canada's position. Sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a state’s right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity,
and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the land’s inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority.
However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security.
No one could own the Moon, planet Mars, or America just by going there and back.
Historical agreement(s) between the aboriginal people and the government of Canada.
The explorer Christopher Columbus made four trips across the Atlantic ocean from Spain in 1492, 1498 and 1502. He landed with his small sailboat upon the Americas. Millions of people already lived there! Extensive European colonization of the "New World", the Americas, began in 1492. European conquest, large-scale exploration, colonization and industrial development soon followed. In the 19th century alone over 50 million people left Europe for the Americas. Various treaties and laws have been enacted between European settlers and the aboriginal populations (First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people).
In 1867, Canada was formed as a federal dominion. Over centuries, elements of Aboriginal, French, British and more recent immigrant customsm have formed the Canadian culture.
Now let us apply Global Community Criteria to the first explorers of the Americas.
During the very first years after year 1492,the British Crown never owned the land in North America. The Criteria says that only the community living on the land can claim ownership and sovereignty. A far away nation, such as the British Crown, could not have claimed or have rights on the land. The local community had all the rights, ownership and sovereignty, on the land and of its natural resources within its boundaries.
What happened back in 1492 and afterward, the Europeans forced the aboriginal people off their land and colonized the region where they landed. Now, according to the Criteria, as soon as the aboriginal people were forced out of their land, they no longer owned that land. The newly arrived Europeans owned the land.
Over time, various laws, treaties, and legislation have been enacted between European immigrants and the Aboriginal populations across Canada. Starting in 1701, the Birtish Crown entered into solemn treaties to encourage peaceful relations between First Nations and non-Aboriginal people. Over the next centuries, treaties were signed to define the respective rights of Aboriginal people and governments to use and enjoy lands that Aboriginal people traditionally occupied.
On June 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada has put Aboriginals on a new footing in a landmark ruling that has implications for natural resource industries across the country. Aboriginal communities gain important new economic assets, and powerful leverage over development by outsiders, but not a veto. The Court determined that native Canadians still own their ancestral lands, unless they signed away their ownership in treaties with government.
For the first time, the Court recognized the existence of Aboriginal title on a particular site. The Aboriginal title means control of ancestral lands and the right to use them for modern economic purposes, without destroying those lands for future generations. The Court said
The doctrine of "terra nullius" [that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereingty] never applied in Canada.
Global Community Criteria shows very clearly that this Court ruling was wrong and illegal.
Historically, at the time of signing treaties or agreements with the European immigrants, the Aboriginal people could no longer claimed ownership, title, or sovereignty over their ancestral lands because they were no longer communities living on those lands. They had been killed or forced out of their ancestral lands by the European immigrants. The Criteria says that only a community already living on a land can claim its ownership and sovereignty.
Now the British Crown could not have claimed ownership or sovereignty either because they were not living on the land. Proxy immigrants dont work here. Because the British Crown sent people to live in Canada does not implies ownership or sovereignty of Canada. In fact, proxy abuses (or vicarious abuses), such as proxy European immigrants supposedly representing the British Crown for ownership and sovereignty, were abuses committed on behalf of the British Crown. Global Community Criteria is very specific: only the people actually living on the land can claim ownership and sovereignty on land and its natural resources within its boundaries. And certainly this does not include all of Canada. A community can only claim a specific piece of land but that does not mean all of Canada. In fact, back during colonization, none of the European immigrants knew of what Canada meant geographically. They were only interested in a specific land where they could build a community as defined by the Criteria.
The ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada assumed that, back during colonization, the British Crown owned the land today called Canada, and that the Aboriginal people were still living on specific sections of that land the Europeans immigrants wanted to colonized. Both assumptions were wrong from the beginning and therefore the ruling was wrong and was illigal. From there on, all treaties and agreements signed between the European immigrants and the Aboriginal people were also wrong because treaties signed bases on previously illegal treaties are also wrong and illegal.
The example given above here about the Chinese government deciding to send a rocket to planet Mars with one person on board. The questions to be asked: Does that means that the person owns the planet? Does the Chinese government owns the planet?
Global Community perspective is very clear: neither the pilot or the Chinese government can claim ownership or sovereignty. Only a community already established in place can claim ownership and sovereignty.
In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the
Court's ruling.
Does Denmark truly owns Greenland? Just because you say you do? Just because the Permanent Court of International Justice say you do? What if the Court was wrong or corrupted?
Canada says it owns ge and Nunavut but how is that possible? Just because Canada says it does? Or because the United Nations say it does?
What if the UN is corrupted? or wrong?
No one can own Mount Everest in the Himalayas just by climbing to the top
Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth, as measured by the height of its summit above sea level. The mountain, which is part of the Himalaya range, is located on the border between Nepal and Tibet, China. As of the end of the 2006 climbing season, there have been 3,050 ascents to the summit, by 2,062 individuals, and 203 people have died on the mountain. There have been more than 630 further ascents in 2007. The conditions on the mountain are so difficult that most of the corpses have been left where they fell; some of them are easily visible from the standard climbing routes. Climbers are a significant source of tourist revenue for Nepal; they range from experienced mountaineers to relative novices who count on their paid guides to get them to the top. The Nepalese government also requires a permit from all prospective climbers; this carries a heavy fee, often more than $25,000 (USD) per person.
Obviously we know the answers to all thes questions. You dont own it the mountain. You never did and never will.
Just like the first European explorers who discovered America, they arrived and conquered. Aboriginals did not have a chance.
Aboriginals said America was their home. But no longer! The explorers said it is now ours. Most Aboriginals were shot in the USA. More survived in Canada! Explorers were not doing this hard work just for the pleasure of finding something new. Their countries sent them and pay for their expenses. Explorers were expected to find something tangible that could make their countries proud and rich.
Today, territorial conflicts have for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages, wars have been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. We have seen oil conflictsin the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Congo, New Guinea, and Borneo. We have seen conflicts over valuable gems, minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries.
Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few.
Truly, we are on the threshold of a global revolution, and we need to proceed with the non-violent approach. We need to build an economic democracy based firmly on the basic principle that the Earth belongs equally to everyone as a birthright. The Earth is for all people to labor and live on and should never be the possession of any individual, corporation, or uncaring government, any more than the air or water, or any other Earth natural resources. An individual, or a business should have no more than is needed for a healthy living.
All the climbing techniques in the world to get to the top of Mount Everest, all the hard work, all the sweat and pain endured, and more, much more, to finally put a flag on top of the mountain. Amazing human achievement! We can really be proud of a team that did it.
But you dont own the mountain.
What makes a 'nation' ? And what makes 'a global community' ?
Perhaps it is time to leave behind the concept of 'nation'. It has confusing meanings and has been over-used in many situations and by everyone. Is it truly necessary to discuss about it? I dont think so. Let us move on to the twenty first century. Global Community has researched and developed new global concepts more appropriate to our times. The concept of 'a global community' 
is one of them and is certainly a powerful new concept that will make its place in history.
China, not a member of the Arctic Council that determines Arctic policies, is actively searching ways to reap economic and strategic benefits from the ice melting despite having no Arctic coast, and hence no sovereign rights to underwater continental shelves there. The emerging giant is assessing the commercial, political and security implications of a seasonally ice-free Arctic region. It has allocated more resources to Arctic research. The country owns one of the world’s strongest polar scientific research capabilities and the world’s largest non-nuclear icebreaker.
Now let us have a closer look at who, and what nations really should be claiming ownership and sovereignty of the Artic region. There are important questions to be asked.
Does mapping the ocean floor gives you ownership of the land nearby? No it does not.
Just because you put a flag on the Moon means you own the Moon. It just does not work that way.
Several centuries ago Canadian first explorers landed on the North America shore. Just because they arrived on the North America coast on a sail boat does not imply that Canadians owned Canada or the continent. Of course not!
A dog, a bear, a wolf, and many other life species, leave 'something' at the bottom of a tree, a bush, a building, a park bench, but this does not mean the life species owns the tree, the forest, the park, the building or the town. People can leave a flag or whatever else, but that does not mean they own the Moon, planet Mars, Nunavut or Greenland.
Hans Island has no one living on the island so Canada or Denmark cannot claim sovereignty over the island. Most of Greenland and Nunavut are practically empty of people. Similarly for the case of Hans Island. Just because you say you own an island does not give you ownership of the island. It is totally arbitrarily to claim ownership of Hans Island by either Canada or Denmark. No one lives on the island so anyone in the world can say they own it. Right now no one does own the island. Whatever rulings nations and organizations can come up with, they are only applicable by the nations who have signed in.
So there two international organizations concerned with territorial sovereignty:
1) the International Court of Justice, and
2) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
and one organization concerned with the international maritime traffic: the International Maritime Organization.
Whatever rulings these organizations can come up with, they are only applicable by the nations who have signed in.
These rulings can be wrong. For instance, what gave the Permanent Court of International Justice the right to declare the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. How can that be? The ruling is totally arbitrarily. Probably the Permanent Court of International Justice itself was especially created to declare the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. There is corruption anywhere at all levels of government, and there can be corruption at the Court.
Similarly for the case of Hans Island. Just because you say you own an island does not give you ownership of the island. It is totally arbitrarily to claim ownership of Hans Island by either Canada or Denmark. No one lives on the island so anyone in the world can say they own it.
From Global Community perspective, the Falkland Islands truly belong to the inhabitants of the islands. There exist a strong sustainable community on the islands, and they dont need anyone's approval to keep living on the islands.
But in the case of Hans Island, no one live on the island. From Global Community perspective, any new sustainable community brave enough to live on Hans Island
owns it. That is a basic principle. There no need to ask permission from any organization such as the International Court of Justice or the United Nations.
Someday people from a nation will land on the Moon and on planet Mars for the purpose of settling a colony. They wont ask permission from anybody because there is no one there. People from another nation might do the same and settle a colony somewhere else on the Moon and Mars. There again they dont need to ask permission to do so. Things get more complicated when a nation is a predator nation like the first explorers of North America. There were people living on the continent. The explorers shut dead the Aboriginals when they got there. The explorers behave very much like predators. And the nations they represented were predator nations. A predator nation is behaving more or less like a shark eating smaller fishes. No organization in the world should be going along with such human behavior. Civilized people can live without killing others to survive. We dont need blood resources to survive. The global civilization we have created has called upon the Agency of Global Police (AGP) to deal with predator nations.
On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a global community lease payment basis for public needs as it has affirmed that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions. Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected. Oceans are a commons.
Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.
Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water.
Water are a commons. All natural resources are a commons.
Global Community has many expert groups able to begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels.
In fact, each of the five nations bordering the Arctic has been making its own separate bids. Denmark for instance, which claims over the vast ice-covered land mass of Greenland, largely located within the Arctic circle, has carried out its own scientific expedition aimed at backing up its own claims. And Denmark’s Scandinavian neighbor Norway has officially demanded that its rights over the eastern part of the Arctic be extended. The rationale underlying the fever of the Arctic border states appears to be just one: to reach out to the rich reserves of oil and gas deposited at the bottom of the Arctic circle.
In order to build a sustainable Global Community, each individual, each local community, and national governments of the world must initiate their commitment to Global Community, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of the Global Constitution 
principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.
Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.
Building global communities require understanding of global problems this generation is facing. There are several major problems: conflicts and wars,
no tolerance and compassion for one another, world overpopulation, human activities, as population increases the respect and value of a human life is in decline, insufficient protection and prevention for global health, scarcity of resources and drinking water, poverty, Fauna and Flora species disappearing at a fast rate, global warming and global climate change, global pollution, deforestation, permanent lost of the Earth's genetic heritage, and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet. We need to build global communities for all life on the planet. We need to build global communities that will manage themselves with the understanding of the above problems.
Results from previous Global Dialogues have showed us that the governance of Earth through global cooperation and symbiotical relationships was the only possible option for a large population such as the Earth's population, and so, to help achieve this goal we have developed the Global Constitution
and the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act to govern ourselves as member nations of Earth Govewrnment.
Global Community allows people to take control of their own lives. Global Community was built from a grassroots process with a vision for humanity that is challenging every person on Earth as well as nation governments. Global Community has a vision of the people working together building a global civilization including a healthy and rewarding future for the next generations. Global cooperation brings people together for a common future for the good of all.
To achieve a balance of freedom and order, local communities must be given a larger responsibility for peace and care for Earth. Let towns and cities link with each other locally and across national boundaries in creating programs and in solving social and environmental problems. This will help foster the trust needed by nations to achieve lasting peace for all peoples.
When a group of ordinary people realized they, personally, will make the changes they need in their fields, in their village. They can then find ways to bring these changes for all.
Global Community has given back responsibility to every citizen on Earth. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of life within Global Community. We will work together in working out sound solutions to local and global problems. It would be wrong and dishonest to blame it all on the leader of a country. Most problems in the world must find solutions at the local and global community levels (and not assume that the leader alone is responsible and will handle it). There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be utilized. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, and encouraged to develop his or her own life for the better. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future. Everyone can think of better ideas to sustain all life on Earth and realize these ideas by conducting positive and constructive actions. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss; that is the grassroots process. Global Community can help you realize your actions by coordinating efforts efficiently together.
The power of Global Community was de-centralized to give each Global Government a better chance to find the right solutions and policies to global issues. Each Global Government can act faster and be more effective and efficient in the context of Global Community, this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities within each Nation. Global Community becomes thus more fluid and dynamic. A global symbiotical relationship is created between Nations and Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world. A typical example is the Global Government of North America (GGNA) 
can be made of willing Member Nations such as Canada, the United States, Mexico, the Territories, and include the North Pole region.
Perhaps now is time to elaborate more on responsibility and accountability of a Global Community. The Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act is a good start.
The peoples of all Nations, in creating an ever closer Global Community among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage,Global Community is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing Global Community citizenship and by creating an era of freedom, security and justice.
Global Community contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of all Nations as well as the national identities of Member Nations and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and the freedom of establishment. To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in the Global Constitution .
The Global Constitution reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of Global Community and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to Member Nations, the Scale of Social Values, or Scale of Global Rights, adopted by Global Community and by the Global Council of all Nations and the case law of the Earth Court of Justice of Global Community and of the Global Court of Global Rights. Enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the human community and to future generations. Global Community therefore recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out hereafter.
For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has proposed a benchmark:
* formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
* getting ride of corruption at all levels of government
* the establishment of Global Police to fight against the growing threat to the security of all Peoples, and to fight against global crimes
* the Scale of Global Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* Statement of Rights, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of a person belonging to 'a global community' and to 'Global Community '
* an evolved global democracy based on the Scale of Global Rights and the Global Constitution
* a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth governance: Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
* the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of governance and management of the Earth
* a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
* more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business, religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the good and well-being of all
* proposal to reform the United Nations, NATO, World Trade Organization, World Bank, IMF, E.U., NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Global Community, and these organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Global Community
* the Peace Movement of Global Community and shelving of the war industry from humanity
* a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of Global rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainable consumption aspects
* the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich or industrialized nations to the developing nations
* establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights
Perhaps now we should introduce some important members of Global Community: the global civil society, the human family, all different ways of expressing the same people. Most of the time many politicians representing their citizens at the United Nations have no knowledge, experience, and understanding of global problems. They seek advise from others, and these 'others' are always members of the global civil society. Yet politicians make global decisions or the lack of them during meetings. Politicians become actors on the world scene. Actors taken jobs they are not always qualified to take in reality. They make decisions, and they dont understand consequences. In effect, politicians are threatening the security of all people and all life on Earth. And that is the 'raison d'etre' of the House of Advisors in Global Community.
You will be required to send representatives to your House of Advisors.
The global civil society is made of people from all aspects of life who have a greater understanding of the problem whatever it may be. The global civil society is the mind, heart and Soul of humanity, the human family. They maybe NGOs, businesses, agencies, scientists and professionals, religious groups, or other groups. They should have a voting right during all meetings of the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. They are given an important status in Global Community.
Global Community will do everything possible to give trade the proper guidance for humanity. Trade will become a global co-operation between all nations. The kind of behaviour that happened in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world will not be allowed again. That is Global Community's commitment to make government and global citizens responsible and accountable. This commitment was defined in sections 11 to 14 of the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act. 
Governance of the Earth will make the rule of arbitrary power--economic (WTO, FTAA, EU), political (UN), or military (U.S.A. and NATO)-- subjected to the rule of Global Law within the global civil society, the human family. Justice is for everyone and is everywhere, a universal constant. Earth governance does not imply a lost of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. A nation government can exists within the framework of an effective Global Community protecting common global values and humanity heritage.
Earth governance gives a new meaning to the notions of territoriality, and non-intervention in a state way of life, and it is about protecting the cultural heritage of a state. Diversity of cultural and ethnic groups is an important aspect of Earth governance. Earth governance is a balance between the rights of states with rights of people, and the interests of nations with the interests of the Global Community, the human family, the global civil society. Earth governance is about the rights of states to self-determination in the global context of Global Community rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states. Although Global Community ensures state governments that it will obey the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, it will also stand for the rights and interests of the people within individual states in which the security of people is extensively endangered. A global consensus to that effect will be agreed upon by all Member Nations.
The Arctic will witness an increase in surface naval activity over subsurface activity. Investments are being made in physical infrastructure. An unimpeded flow of oil requires Artic management and maritime patrol.
The Polar Regions are very sensitive indicators of global warming. These regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and may be virtually ice free by the summer of 2030. Because sea ice has a bright surface, the majority of solar energy that hits it is reflected back into space. When sea ice melts, the dark-coloured ocean surface is exposed. Solar energy is then absorbed rather than reflected, so the oceans get warmer and temperatures rise, making it difficult for new ice to form.
Increased navigation and commercial use of the Northwest Passage create several environmental risks. The Arctic ecosystem is very fragile and the fauna strongly depends on the ice for its survival. The seasonal ice that serves as a hunting platform for coastal communities is very sensitive to heavy traffic. Even the icebreaker Amundsen is a source of concern.
There are risks concerning eventual accidents, such as oil spills and groundings in the Northwest Passage. Canada has duties and responsibilities to the ecosystem and the Inuit. After the first voyage of the Manhattan supertanker and the realization that it could be the start of an international navigation practice, Canada searched for ways to, above all, protect the delicate environment of the Passage. Even though the Manhattan supertanker was empty of oil when it was damaged on its first voyage, and quite seriously damaged, the Canadian government realized that legislation had to be passed to protect the North from environmental damage. In fact, the Government of Canada has created the Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was a truly novel response to the potential crisis. The Act enabled Canada to exercise jurisdiction over shipping in the Passage in order to protect the Arctic marine environment but it did not, in any way, change the position of Canada with respect to their claim of sovereignty over the Passage.
The requirements of an international sea waterway are both geographic and functional. An international sea waterway must connect two bodies of the high seas, in this case the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and must also satisfy the criterion of being a useful route for navigation, and must have experienced a sufficient number of transits. Considering the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Corfu Channel Case, it becomes readily available that this criterion fails to be met in the case of the Northwest Passage, as there has not yet been a sufficient number of transits to qualify it as a useful route for international maritime traffic. However, if a sufficient number of vessels transit the passage without seeking Canadian permission, Canada’s claims to the legal
status of the passage could be challenged, as there would be an increasing claim and perception that the passage constitutes an international sea waterway. This international status would limit Canada’s ability to control these waters, especially in terms of rules governing environmental issues and shipping practices, which would potentially be governed by the International Maritime Organization. Most agree that ensuring control requires a stronger Government of Canada presence in the region, to monitor the passage and ensure compliance with Canadian sovereign claims.
Learning to live in harmony with our environment is a challenge that we all face today in the Northwest Passage. Global Community has risen to this challenge and proposed sound solutions. The stewardship of our natural resources is a responsibility we all have. Sovereignty implies control, authority within a territory, and also implies responsibility, environmental protection, and maintenance of international security over that territory. Earth management is certainly an important part of sovereignty. The focus should be on the Earth management of the Northwest Passage. There are many aspects of Earth management:
- Socioeconomic health of Inuit communities
- Economic ethics and social environment
- Inuit and Canadian Governments cooperation, partnership, and agreements
- Circumpolar nations responsibility, cooperation and agreements
- Government agencies and institutions
- Financial issues
- Protection and health of other life-form communities in the Passage
- Environmental protection and conservation
- North America security issues
- Immigration issues
- Natural resources protection, exploration, research and development
- Mineral and energy resources exploration and development
- Transportation and shipping issues
- Emergency response, rescue and relief issues
- Construction standards for tankers
- Rules for safe sailing in the Passage
- Aids for navigation, icebreaking, weather and ice forcasting
- User fees
- Compliance issues and liability for spills and other damages
- Drug trafficking and other criminal activity issues
- Clean-up issues
- Water issues
One of the greatest causes of conflict in history has been the conflicting views of different religions. And at the same time it is religion that has most effectively fostered
humanitarian actions. The question is, can the obvious benefits in different religions be approved and supported without approving that part of their faith with which we differ?
Allegiance to a faith dealing with the mysteries of life: why are we here? Is there a future life? Is there a God? often provides meaning and incentives for a virtuous life. But each person must temper their belief by recognizing any virtue they see in people with a different hypothesis about the mysteries of life. The Golden Rule Principle, also called the Ethic of Reciprocity by theologians, says: "Dont do to others what you wouldn't want done to you." Or treat others the way you would want to be treated. The Golden Rule has a moral aspect found in each religion or faith. It could be used as a global ethic. Every faith is unanimous of saying that every individual should be treated with the same respect and dignity we all seek for ourselves. As a first step in bringing together religious leaders all around the world, the Global Community is presenting here 13 statements that unify us all in one Golden Rule .
Promoting an action program for Ethics 
of Earth with these redemptive policies would quickly bring new attitudes of trust and hope a change of heart worldwide.
The principle of sharing has always formed the basis of social relationships in societies across the world. We all know from personal experience that sharing is central to family and community life, and the importance of sharing is also a key component of many of the world’s religions.
Given the importance of the principle of sharing in human life, it is logical to assume that it should play an important role in the way we organise economies and manage the world’s resources.
Humanity currently consumes 50 percent more natural resources than the earth can sustainably produce, which means we already require the equivalent of one and a half planets to support our consumption levels.
This calculation does not even take into account the massive growth in consumption that is widely predicted to take place over coming decades, in which the global ‘middle class’ is expected to grow from under 2 billion consumers today to nearly 5 billion by 2030. Clearly, the ecological consequences of increased consumption across the world will be severe.
But our failure to share resources has also resulted in severe social consequences which cannot be divorced from any discussion about the environment. Ecological chaos, poverty and inequality are related outcomes of an ill-managed world system.
There are massive differences in the consumption patterns and carbon emissions of people living in rich and poor countries. A small proportion of the world’s population – around 20 percent – consumes the vast majority of the world’s resources. Excessive consumption by the wealthiest 10 percent of the world’s population poses the biggest threat to the environment today.
At the same time, the poorest 20 percent of the world’s population do not have access to the basic resources they need to survive. Around a billion people are officially classified as hungry, and almost half of the developing world population is trying to survive on less than $2 a day. Over 40,000 people die every single day from a lack of access to those resources that many of us take for granted. This is perhaps the starkest illustration of the human impact of our failure to share.
For too long, governments have put profit and growth before the welfare of all people and the sustainability of the biosphere. Public policy under the influence of neoliberalism has created a world economy that is structurally dependent upon unsustainable levels of production and consumption for its continued success.
Global Community has put forward a blueprint of the specific policies and actions governments need to take.
Global Community has outlined a bold vision of how and why these reforms should be based firmly on the principle of sharing. Sharing the world’s resources equitably and sustainably is arguably the most pragmatic way of simultaneously addressing both the ecological and social crises we face.
Essentially, a Global Commons Trust would embody the principle of sharing on a global scale, and it would enable the Global Community to take collective responsibility for managing the world’s resources.
With resources held in trust for all, it would be much easier to implement the second element required to establish a global sharing economy, which is to equalise global consumption levels so that all human beings can flourish within ecological limits. To achieve this, over-consuming countries need to significantly reduce their resource use, while developing countries must be able to increase theirs until a convergence in global per capita consumption levels is eventually reached.
The real challenge is reducing consumption levels in industrialised nations. For example, natural resource management would need to be at the forefront of policymaking, and economic growth based on unlimited consumption can no longer be the goal of government policy. Much would also need to be done to dismantle the culture of consumerism; and investment must shift to building and sustaining a low-carbon infrastructure.
With both of these key elements in place (trusteeship of shared natural resources and reduced global consumption), natural resources would be accessible to people in all countries, consumed within planetary limits and preserved for future generations.
Social injustice and ecological crises must be recognised as inextricable parts of the same problem: our failure to share the world's resources in a way that benefits all people and preserves the biosphere. A universal call for sharing has the potential to unite both environmentalists and those campaigning for global justice, paving the way to a more just, sustainable and peaceful world.
We need to create a Global Ministry for the economic sharing, production and distribution of resources. We need global ministries for all the commons.
Global Ministries are the new Global Commons 
:
- Global Ministry of Essential Services
- Ministry of Global Resources
- Ministry of Global Peace in government
- Earth Environmental Governance
- Earth Ministry of Health
- Global Ministry of Forests
- Global Ministry of Agriculture, Food Production and Distribution
- Global Civilization Ministry of Peace and Disarmament
- Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs: Global Government of Africa
- Global Ministry of Water Resources Protection
- Global Environment Ministry
The commons are the cultural and natural resources accessible to everyone for the benefits of all.
These resources are held in common and not to be owned privately. The most important commons for all life on our planet are certainly the global life-support systems without which noone could survive on our planet.
The global life-support systems are the Commons with the highest priorities.
There are many
related aspects of the
global life-support
systems:
- climate change
- global warming
- Oxygen supplies
- Ozone depletion
- wastes of all kind including nuclear and release of radiation; chemical pollution
- primordial global rights deterioration
- species of the fauna and flora becoming extinct
- losses of forest cover and of biological diversity
- the capacity for photosynthesis
- the water cycle and fresh water use
- phosphorus and nitrogen cycles
- food production systems
- genetic resources
- change in land use and lost of agricultural soils
- global ocean acidification
The Scale of Global Rights prioritizes the Commons to save all life on Earth.
The Scale of Global Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on. Concerning Sections 1, 2, and 3, it shall be Global Community highest priority to guarantee these rights to Member Nations and to have proper legislation and implement and enforce Global Law. Concerning Sections 4, 5, and 6, it shall be the aim of Global Community to secure these other rights for all global citizens but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rights are defined as Directive Principles, obligating Global Community to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the Scale of Global Rights defines the Commons with the highest priorities.
Section 1. Ecological rights, and the protection of the global life-support systems
Section 2. Primordial human rights:
- safety and security
- have shelter
- ‘clean’ energy
- a ‘clean’ and healthy environment
- drink fresh water
- breath clean air
- eat a balance diet
- basic clothing
- universal health care and education
- employment for all
Section 3. global rights of future generations to have their life-support systems protected and primordial human rights taken care of today.
Historically, the commons were regulated; for examples: hunting, fishing, farming, grazing of livestock, land irrigation, community forests, etc.
In our society, the commons, which were supposed to be a vehicle for meeting everyone's basic needs in a roughly equitable way, have been used to serve a global market economy. On a cultural level, the commons include music, arts, video, television, literature, radio, media information, software, etc.
The normal workings of market economy require the appropriations of resources that morally or legally belong to everyone. In turn, these resources must be changed to tradeable commodities. For example, the World Trade Organization, which claims to advance human development through free trade, is essentially a system for seizing non-market resources from communities, dispossessing people and exploiting fragile ecosystems with the full sanction of international and domestic law.
For economic reasons, society has privatized lifeforms, replaced biodiverse lands with crop monocultures, allowed businesses to use groundwater supplies to make bottled water, and exchange self-reproducing agricultural crops for sterile, proprietary seeds that must be bought again and again.
As shown in the above global life-support systems listing and in the Scale of Global Rights, the most well-known commons that has been successful for billions of years is the biosphere. Nature has been and is still today the most important commons and society needs to build an economy of the commons that makes democracy based on the fact that land, air, water, oil & gas, minerals, space, the electromagnetic spectrum, and all other natural resources rightly belong to Global Community as a birthright, and they are for sharing as per the Scale of Global Rights.
All major habitat types across the planet are substantially degraded with alarming implications for their continued capacity to support human well-being into the long-term future.
And there are many instances of aggressive and competitive exploitation leading to the degradation or even collapse of marine and fresh water fisheries, grazing lands, water resources and other important commons.
We live today in an era when a burgeoning global human population is colliding with seriously degraded and degrading ecosystem quality, making increasingly evident and urgent the need for the moderation of human activities towards the achievement of a sustainable balance. This necessarily includes ensuring equitable access to resources, essential for social stability at everything from local to global scales. For example, carbon-rich emissions from anywhere in the world affect all who share this planet's climate system, and equally carbon sequestered in any one locality represents a potential benefit to everyone on Earth including future generations.
So, how do we go about adapting our behaviours to manage in a sustainable way the many environmental commons upon which we rely but have consistently overlooked in decision-making at the very least since the outset of the Industrial Revolution?
The major transition to a more sustainable world lies in the distinction between, on the one hand, the ownership of land and other key natural resources and, on the other, the many benefits that these ecosystems provide to people regardless of ownership. The old ways are no longer morally nor even economically acceptable.
Today, we describe these many societal benefits from the natural world as ecosystem services. These services are very important to survival, our enjoyment of a decent quality of life, and contributes to the wellbeing of humanity.
The Commons is based on the notion that just by being members of the human family, we all have rights to certain common heritages, such as the atmosphere and oceans, freshwater and genetic diversity, or culture. In most traditional societies, it was assumed that what belonged to one belonged to all. Many indigenous societies to this day cannot conceive of denying a person or a family basic access to food, air, land, water and livelihood. Many modern societies extended the same concept of universal access to the notion of a social Commons, creating education, health care and social security for all members of the Community. Since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, governments are obliged to protect the human rights, cultural diversity and food security of their citizens.
Equitable access to natural resources is another key character of the Commons. These resources are not there for the taking by private interests who can then deny them to anyone without means. The human right to land, food, water, health care and biodiversity should all be codified as Global Community has done by developing the Scale of Global Rights.
Historically, in terms of property law, the commons were bound to ownership of fields; everyone who owned fields was permitted to herd their cattle on the commons. Arable farming was organized in cooperatives, and the village cooperative had the authority to manage the commons. An important rule concerned the date when the harvest was concluded; on that date, cattle were herded to the stubble, where they manured the soil. In other words, fields and meadows turned into commons after the grain and hay were harvested. Private property was in abeyance and treated as common property until spring returned.
At some point in time, only landowners had property rights to the commons. The commons were part of an economic system that had no alternative but to be communal. Managing the commons was based on social and cultural interaction and closely connected to the cooperative's property rights to the common resources. The stronger the peasants property rights to the fields, and therefore also to the commons, the stronger their self-government. At the village court, it was no longer the interests of the lord that were determinative, but those of the peasants cooperative.
The historical concept of the commons covers a broad spectrum of communal property rights, from merely the right to use a resource owned by the feudal lords to self-management, the exclusion of third parties, and even the right to sell the resource.
In contrast, the concept of the commons today often refers to open-access natural resources such as oceans, land, fresh water, the atmosphere and space. Such aspirational uses of the term do not specify the actual governance regimes that can sustainably manage them. They are the global life-support systems and Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the Scale of Global Rights.
High-seas fisheries can serve as an example. Limiting a fishing season to counter overfishing has a parallel in the grazing season on the commons; extending national fishing zones to 200 miles from the coast is analogous to the boundaries of a village's grazing land and the determination of who had rights to graze livestock there. The establishment of national quotas and individual fishermen's quotas resembles the practice of stinting on the commons. Similar institutions regulating use of the atmosphere, they believe, might emerge. Following those who consider the oceans to be the common heritage of all mankind, one could consider these resources to be a giant commons managed as a trust by some global agency such as Global Protection Agency (GPA).
At the time of the first Manhattan supertanker voyage, the Canadian public, the media and the opposition cried foul and demanded more concrete action by the government to protect its sovereignty. Prime Minister Trudeau, however, resisted this pressure in favour of a Canadian liberal internationalist ideology. The Act was seen as a vital tool to protect the distinctive way of life of Canada’s northern communities. Conceived by Jean Chrétien, the sole purpose of the Act was to establish a one hundred-mile wide Arctic pollution control zone measured outward from the nearest Canadian land in which environmental controls to shipping practices and the protection of the marine environment were to be enforced by Canada. This legislation was necessary because of the danger posed by oil-laden tankers that could spill their contents thus permanently damaging the fragile Arctic environment. Such actions could not be considered “innocent”. The 100-mile limit was chosen as it was compatible with international legal standards applicable to oil pollution from tankers. The thinking was: if states could defend themselves against armed attack, why not environmental attack? At a time when the world was only beginning to think about environmental protection issues, this legislation was particularly avant-garde in its custodianship concept. The Act was generally accepted by the international Community.
In Finland in 1996, the eight circumpolar states established an Arctic Council - an intergovernmental forum in which issues and concerns related to the environment, sustainable development, as well as social and economic considerations are addressed. This council can only function by putting sovereignty to the side in order to tackle the wider and common concerns of Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States.
The rapid melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is already proving catastrophic for a host of species, including narwhals, polar bears, walruses, seals, and sea birds. Plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region. The scale and volume of the methane release has worried the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.
The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.
In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed. Checks were carried out at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal.
Melting ice sheets are critically impacting the geoeconomic and geopolitical environment in the Artic. An ice-free Arctic is already changing now the economic and political conflict with serious impact on geopolitics and the ecosystem of the planet.
Ice-breaking makes Arctic navigation expensive. Highest temperature change now dramatically melts Arctic ice during part of the summer. Conservative estimates calculate a 20 to 40 percent reduction in summer. Commercially viable Arctic sea lanes are anticipated to be opened for part of year well before 2050, which could make the ocean a major world trade route.
Fishing activity in the Arctic, particularly in the Barents Sea and Beaufort/Chukchi region, will influence fishing industry that faces continued dwindling of fishing stocks and increased pressure on fishery resources in the North Pacific and North Atlantic producing strategic implications.
Global warming due to human activities is contributing to the melting of the polar ice caps.
The Polar Regions are very sensitive indicators of global warming. These regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and may be virtually ice free by the summer of 2030.
Canada’s legal position is sound today but as the ice melts, there is the genuine fear that this sovereignty will float away with the pack ice. However there are actions that can be taken and factors that could mitigate against a legal
challenge.
Only in a few legal instances has the ownership of the North Pole region been given attention:
A) The requirements of an international sea waterway are both geographic and functional. An international sea waterway must connect two bodies of the high seas, in this case the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and must also satisfy the criterion of being a useful route for navigation, and must have experienced a sufficient number of transits. Considering the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Corfu Channel Case, it becomes readily available that this criterion fails to be met in the case of the Northwest Passage, as there has not yet been a sufficient number of transits to qualify it as a useful route for international maritime traffic. However, if a sufficient number of vessels transit the passage without seeking Canadian permission, Canada’s claims to the legal status of the passage could be challenged, as there would be an increasing claim and perception that the passage constitutes an international sea waterway. This international status would limit Canada’s ability to control these waters, especially in terms of rules governing environmental issues and shipping practices, which would potentially be governed by the International Maritime Organization. Most agree that ensuring control requires a stronger Government of Canada presence in the region, to monitor the passage and ensure compliance with Canadian sovereign claims.
B) In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and therefore that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.
C) In 1951, the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling on the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), is particularly important for Canada because the ruling shown some direction regarding jurisdiction of states over waters adjacent to their coasts. This ruling:
- recognized the concept of historic title to coastal waters, and
- accepted a new method of measurement of territorial seas that Canada preferred.
D) Hans Island is the subject of a well-reported dispute over Canada’s land territory in the Arctic. The island is claimed by both Canada and Denmark as sovereign territory. These competing claims have never been finally settled in international law. In 1972, a team consisting of personnel from the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Danish personnel, working in the Nares Strait determined the geographic coordinates for Hans Island. During negotiations between Canada and Denmark on Northern maritime boundaries in 1973, Canada claimed that Hans Island was part of its territory. No agreement was reached between the two governments on the issue. Canada’s ability to show control over Hans Island represents a significant indicator of Canada’s ability to exercise sovereignty over its Arctic territory. The dispute over Hans Island may turn into a test case on territorial claims in the Arctic especially regarding the contested Northwest. A border between Canada and Greenland was established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program.
E) In 1969, the US sent the oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in defiance of Canada's claim that it has exclusive rights over those waters. Navigation was difficult. The Manhattan was damaged during the voyage which may have planted the seed for Canada’s future pollution legislation. In 1970, the Canadian government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Conceived by Jean Chrétien, the sole purpose of the Act was to establish a one hundred-mile wide Arctic pollution control zone measured outward from the nearest Canadian land in which environmental controls to shipping practices and the protection of the marine environment were to be enforced by Canada. The Act was generally accepted by the international Community. Canada’s thinking behind its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act with its emphasis on the uniqueness of the Arctic translated into the arctic exception - Article 234 that was adopted by the final UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, Article 234. In response, a U.S. foreign relations document from 1970 stated that the US cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada because such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.
Article 234 is shown below:
Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence.
F) In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through, and the U.S. government made a point of not asking permission from Canada. They claimed that this was simply a cost-effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through an international waterway. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that did not solve the sovereignty issues but stated that U.S. icebreakers would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through. The agreement pledges that voyages of U.S. icebreakers will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada. The agreement did not alter either country’s legal position vis-à-vis the Arctic waters. With regard to the United States’ legal position, however, there have been some suggestions that U.S. concerns with continental security since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 could dampen its assertions that Canada’s Arctic waters constitute an international waterway. Accordingly, Canada might be wise to manage the passage as a way of securing the North American perimeter.
G) Canada and the United States have disputed the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea, an area that potentially has strong oil and gas resources. Exploration licences and competing claims to jurisdiction could be an ongoing issue. Under the leadership of Jean Chrtien, Canada has committed $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration. The United States has not ratified the UNCLOS, despite a vote in 2004 by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommending ratification.
H) In 1988, however, Canada and the United States forged an agreement on Arctic Cooperation, which pledges that voyages of U.S. icebreakers will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada. The agreement did not alter either country’s legal position vis-à-vis the Arctic waters. With regard to the United States’ legal position, however, there have been some suggestions that U.S. concerns with continental security since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 could dampen its assertions that Canada’s Arctic waters constitute an international waterway. Accordingly, Canada might be wise to manage the passage as a way of securing the North American perimeter.
The agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", did not solve the sovereignty issues but stated that U.S. icebreakers would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through. U.S. concerns with continental security since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, could dampen its assertions that Canada’s Arctic waters constitute an international waterway.
I) After several multilateral conferences and meetings, Canada was able to get acceptance of its idea of custodianship to the world. Few nations recognized the US’s strong legal argument to designate the Passage as an international waterway, and Canada secured enough international support especially amongst the circumpolar Scandinavian states of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and most importantly, the Soviet Union to rejected the US international claim for a Canadian claim focused on custodianship. Canada was recognized by its environmental protection vision for the Passage without having to raise the sovereignty issue. This is further evidence of Canada’s assertion that the Passage is part of Canada’s internal waters. Canada has in fact staged the first global step toward the Earth management of natural resources. Earth management is something Global Community has been promoting ever since 1985.
The eight circumpolar states have established an Arctic Council - an intergovernmental forum in which issues and concerns related to the environment, sustainable development, as well as social and economic considerations are addressed. This council can only function by putting sovereignty to the side in order to tackle the wider and common concerns of Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States.
Canada is built on a common heritage of values, which Canadians have fought and died to defend. It is a country that continues to attract newcomers seeking refuge and opportunity, who see Canada as a place where they can work hard, raise families and live in freedom. Our Government is resolved to uphold this heritage by protecting our sovereignty at home and living by our values abroad.
The Arctic is an essential part of Canada’s history. One of our Fathers of Confederation, D’Arcy McGee, spoke of Canada as a northern nation, bounded by the blue rim of the ocean. Canadians see in our North an expression of our deepest aspirations: our sense of exploration, the beauty and the bounty of our land, and our limitless potential.
But the North needs new attention. New opportunities are emerging across the Arctic, and new challenges from other shores. Our Government will bring forward an integrated northern strategy focused on strengthening Canada’s sovereignty, protecting our environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development, and improving and devolving governance, so that northerners have greater control over their destinies.
To take advantage of the North’s vast opportunities, northerners must be able to meet their basic needs. Our Government will work to continue to improve living conditions in the North for First Nations and Inuit through better housing.
Our Government will build a world-class arctic research station that will be on the cutting edge of arctic issues, including environmental science and resource development. This station will be built by Canadians, in Canada’s Arctic, and it will be there to serve the world.
As part of asserting sovereignty in the Arctic, our Government will complete comprehensive mapping of Canada’s Arctic seabed. Never before has this part of Canada’s ocean floor been fully mapped.
Defending our sovereignty in the North also demands that we maintain the capacity to act. New arctic patrol ships and expanded aerial surveillance will guard Canada’s Far North and the Northwest Passage. As well, the size and capabilities of the Arctic Rangers will be expanded to better patrol our vast Arctic territory.
Canada custodianship to the world
Another important dimension of the assertion of Canadian sovereignty includes stewardship, an issue that has been raised by Canada’s northern Inuit and Aboriginal peoples. Specifically, use and occupancy by Canada’s northern inhabitants is significant in terms of the validity of Canada’s sovereign claims.
After several multilateral conferences and meetings, Canada was able to get acceptance of its idea of custodianship to the world. Few nations recognized the US’s strong legal argument to designate the Passage as an international waterway, and Canada secured enough international support especially amongst the circumpolar Scandinavian states of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and most importantly, the Soviet Union to rejected the US international claim for a Canadian claim focused on custodianship and exceptionalism. Eventually, Canada’s thinking behind its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act with its emphasis on the uniqueness of the Arctic translated into the arctic exception - Article 234 that was adopted by the final UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982. Article 234 is shown below:
Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence.
Canada had obtained environmental protection for the Northwest Passage without having to raise the sovereignty issue. This is further evidence of Canada’s assertion that the Passage is part of Canada’s internal waters. Canada has in fact staged the first global step toward the Earth management of natural resources. Earth management is something Global Community has been promoting ever since 1985.
Regardless of sovereignty, protection of the environment is key and Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act does not cover many forms of natural pollution. Which means that any exploitation of resources via use of the Passage will not only impact Canada but also the other circumpolar states. Recognizing the limits of its pollution act, Canada has been a leader in establishing multilateral discussions amongst the various nations to discuss common threats and concerns.
Northwest Passage
The Northwest Passage is a sea route (see Maps) that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
From the east coast of Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, the Northwest Passage runs through waterways such as the Davis pass and Baffin Bay. From there on there are seven different channels, collectively known as the Northwest Passages, to get to the west coast but not all of them are good for large ships. Only two channels are considered accessible to large ships. All of them are a part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and they include the Prince of Wales pass, Dease pass and the McClure pass. Then the Passage runs through Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and, finally, the Bering Strait that separates Russia and Alaska, to the Pacific Ocean.
In the past the Northwest Passage has been practically impassable because it was covered by thick, year-round sea ice. However, satellite and other monitoring confirm that the Arctic sea ice has been declining in both thickness and size. For over a decade, satellite images taken near the end of the Arctic summer often show that large portions of the Passage are almost ice free. In September of 2006, these images showed that the Arctic Ocean was free to sail directly to the North Pole from northern Europe. In the summer of 2007, the area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its lowest level. There was a drop of 1 million sq km of ice cover in just one year. The Northwest Passage was opened for sailing. This extreme reduction in just one year indicates that the summer ice may disappear much sooner than expected, and that Canada urgently needs to understand better the processes involved.
Several countries, including the United States and Europe, have claimed that the Northwest Passage is an international strait that should be governed by the
world's shipping community, not by Canada alone.
If it were to become more accessible to navigation and for longer portions of the year, the Northwest Passage would represent a potentially attractive and valuable commercial shipping route.
The Northwest Passage was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-6. Him and his crfew were the first to have successfully completed a path from Greenland to Alaska in the Gjøa. Although the crossing was an important "first" it had little economic value because the journey took three years and used waters that were too shallow for commercial shipping. Since that date, a number of ice-fortified ships have made the journey.
The first traversal of the Northwest Passage via dog sled was accomplished by Greenlander Knud Rasmussen while on the Fifth Thule Expedition (1921-1924). Rasmussen, and two Greenland Inuit, traveled from the Atlantic to the Pacific over the course of 16 months via dog sled.
In 1940, Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax. In 1969, the SS Manhattan made the passage, accompanied by the Canadian icebreaker John A. Macdonald. The Manhattan was a specially reinforced supertanker sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil. While the Manhattan succeeded, the route was deemed not cost effective and the Alaska Pipeline was built instead.
In 1957, three United States Coast Guard Cutters, Storis, Bramble and SPAR became the first ships to cross the Northwest Passage along a deep waterway route of the Passage. They covered the 4,500 miles of semi-charted water in 64 days. In the past few years, there have been about 8 crossings a year. But almost all of these have involved ships specially reinforced or icebreakers. The significance of the news last summer was that the entire passage was seen in satellite pictures to be clear of ice, making it possible for vessels to make it through.
The Northwest Passage may open itself for navigation for most of the year within 10-20 years. The Sea of Okhotsk and the Sea of Japan will remain ice-free throughout the year. The Russian coast and the Canadian Archipelago will be open to navigation by non-ice-strengthened ships in summer. The entire Russian coast will be ice-free, facilitating navigation through the Barents, Kara, Laptev and East Siberian Seas along the entire Northern Sea Route (NSR).
The Northwest Passage through the Canadian Archipelago and along the coast of Alaska will be navigable every summer by non-icebreaking ships. Significant areas of the Arctic may turn permanently ice-free in the future while the entire area may become seasonally ice-free. An ice-free Arctic passage will provide easy access to natural resources. Trade routes through the Arctic will significantly reduce distances between commercial regions and trade centers and will increase trade.
The impacts of climate change heighten disputes over the status of the Northwest Passage. All water routes through the Northwest Passage pass between the islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. On that basis, Canada claims the Passage as Canadian Internal Waters, and thus fall under Canadian jurisdiction and control. And that means Canada has the right to set the rules over who gets to go through. A key concern is to avoid letting unsafe vessels sally through the passage and risk a devastating oil spill in the fragile Arctic ecosystem that Canada would have to do the clean up.
However, this claim has been disputed, especially by the United States and the European Union. They argued that the Northwest Passage represents international waters, which allows the right of transit passage, and that the strait ought to be governed by the world's shipping community, not by Canada alone. In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage.
In 1969, the US sent the oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in defiance of Canada's claim that it has exclusive rights over those waters. Navigation was difficult. The Manhattan was damaged during the voyage which may have planted the seed for Canada’s future pollution legislation. In 1970, the Canadian government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which asserts Canadian regulatory control over pollution within a 100-mile zone. In response, a U.S. foreign relations document from 1970 stated that the US cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada because such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.
In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through, and the U.S. government made a point of not asking permission from Canada. They claimed that this was simply a cost-effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through an international waterway. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that did not solve the sovereignty issues but stated that U.S. icebreakers would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through.
Each of those voyages became the known international incidents. The Polar Sea expedition galvanized the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to set out a policy for the North and to pledge to get a top-class Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol its northern border. The Polar 8 purchase was cancelled in 1989. No reason given!
In 1988, however, Canada and the United States forged an agreement on Arctic Cooperation, which pledges that voyages of U.S. icebreakers will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada. The agreement did not alter either country’s legal position vis-à-vis the Arctic waters. With regard to the United States’ legal position, however, there have been some suggestions that U.S. concerns with continental security since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 could dampen its assertions that Canada’s Arctic waters constitute an international waterway. Accordingly, Canada might be wise to manage the passage as a way of securing the North American perimeter.
Protectionist sentiments apply to both Canada and the US when it comes to the Passage but for Canada, the concern for Arctic sovereignty is deep-seated. The claim of sovereignty over the artic archipelago is uniquely tied to Canada’s sense of national pride and identity and therefore, any suggestions or actions that endanger the government’s exclusive authority over the disputed territory sparks an emotional and defensive response. Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic embraces land, sea and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward - facing coasts of the Arctic islands. These islands are joined by the waters between them. Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land.
The difficulty for Canada is that many, including the Americans believe insufficient resources and personnel have been dedicated to the Arctic to demonstrate a significant presence thereby weakening its sovereignty claim. Weak resources translate into a weak claim.
It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of the Northwest Passage.
Who owns the Nortwest Passage? What is Canada sovereignty in the North?
Global Community perspective.
Letter to all Canadians concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut
Letter to the Honourable Paul Okalik, Premier of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, concerning the Northwest Passage and sovereignty of Nunavut
Canada wants control of the Northwest Passage and have this control accepted by relevant international organizations. The Northwest Passage is part of Nunavut, a territory of Canada. Canadian sovereignty of Nunavut is itself very questionable. The ownership of the entire region of the North Pole is questionable.
All water routes through the Northwest Passage are located between the islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. On that basis, Canada claims the Passage as Canadian Internal Waters, and thus fall under Canadian jurisdiction and control. And that means Canada has the right to set the rules over who gets to go through. A key concern is to avoid letting unsafe vessels sailing through the passage and risk a devastating oil spill in the fragile Arctic ecosystem and Canada would have to do the clean up.
Canada’s legal position is sound today but as the ice melts, there is the genuine fear that this sovereignty will float away with the melting ice. However there are actions that can be taken and factors that could mitigate against a legal challenge.
This new method of measurement introduced the concept of straight baselines.
Rather than following the outline of a country’s land mass, as was the more traditional method, the straight baseline method allows a country with offshore islands and/or very jagged coastlines to calculate its territorial seas from straight lines drawn from a point on the coast to the islands or from island to island. One then connects the dots literally and the water behind the lines is designated internal waters while waters away from the line and toward open waters are considered territorial seas. Hence the term straight baseline. The old method of measurement (which is still used and favoured by the US) simply calculated the territorial seas from a baseline not exceeding twelve nautical miles from shore that traced the outline of the coast. Therefore the baseline would exactly match the seacoast (but twelve miles out toward sea). The area encompassing a country’s internal waters can be greatly increased by adopting the new method of calculation thus increasing the amount of water deemed internal and under the full authority and sovereignty of the coastal state.
The coastal state may pass laws it deems fit to control traffic and more importantly, no foreign ship may claim automatic right of passage.
This new method of measurement was reinforced seven years later at the first United Nations (UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea. Canada, however, had still not adopted any national legislation to formally claim a historic right to the Passage because, the new jurisprudence was considered quite radical and, at the time, Canada was more preoccupied with protecting Canada’s fishing industry. As well, the anticipated reaction from the US to any formalizing of a Canadian position that the waters of the Arctic Archipelago were internal waters of Canada discouraged precipitate action.
The Prime Minister talk may not mean much of anything new. In 1969, the US sent the oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in defiance of Canada's claim that it has exclusive rights over those waters. And again, in 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through, and the U.S. government made a point of not asking permission from Canada. They claimed that this was simply a cost-effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through an international strait. The Polar Sea expedition galvanized the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, head of the Conservatives of those years, to set out a policy for the North and to pledge to get a top-class Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol its northern border. The Polar 8 purchase was cancelled in 1989. No reason given!
During his time as Prime Minister Jean Chretien and head of the Liberals, Canada has committed $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada’s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration.
Nunavut
In the case of Nunavut, we see land ownership is a significant problem. We have said that the Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.
Inuit living in Northern Greenland or Canada had likely crossed this area for centuries. Up to the early 19th century, the northern area of Greenland and Canada remained completely unexplored by Europeans.
Learning to live in harmony with our environment is a challenge that we all face today in the Northwest Passage. Global Community has risen to this challenge
and proposed sound solutions. The stewardship of our natural resources is a responsibility we all have. Sovereignty implies control, authority within a territory, and also implies responsibility, environmental protection, and maintenance of international security over that territory. Earth management is certainly an important part of sovereignty. The focus should be on the Earth management of the Northwest Passage.
Nunavut's territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) of land and water in Northern Canada including part of the mainland, most of the Arctic Archipelago, and all of the islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay, and Ungava Bay (including the Belcher Islands) which belonged to the Northwest Territories. Nunavut is both the least populated and the largest of the provinces and territories of Canada. It has a population of only about 30,000 spread over an area the size of Western Europe. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit, who make up 85% of the population, although control could change with population growth. The Inuit hold outright title to about to 136,000 square miles of land, 17.6 % of Nunavut, including 13,896 sq mi (36,000 sq km) of subsurface mineral rights, 1.8% of Nunavut. So 82.4% of Nunavut is empty of people. One can say Nunavut is mostly without people. This means that people from all over the world could come to settle a community in Nunavut.
The Inuit lived in the Nunavut region for thousands of years before the first European explorers arrived searching for a Northwest Passage. For all but the last 250 years or so of their history, they were free to govern their lives and manage their territory and resources according to Inuit needs and traditional practices. With the arrival of explorers first from Europe and later from North America, the Inuit way of life started to change, and they have had to struggle very hard to maintain control over their culture, territory and resources. The Inuit are in Canada one of three groups of Aboriginal peoples. The other two are the First Nations and the Métis.
The Inuit people used to hunt the caribou, seals, and fish for food, most Inuit now live in small communities that depend on trapping, sealing, mining such as diamonds, and the production of arts and crafts for their livelihood. There is a small tourist trade, lured by the wildlife and vast space, as well as Inuit cultural attractions.
The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government, a liberal government, and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. They have the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands.
In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely.
The Inuit community has to be actively involved with both the Earth management of the Northwest passage and Nunavut territory. All of the above historical facts seem to indicate more than one way to reach the light at the end of the tunnel. What does the Government of Canada says today?
We have seen so far that Canada's assertion of the Northwest Passage had to be substantiated by a proper Earth management of the Northwest Passage. Let us now take a look at how Earth management can be applied throughout Nunavut territory.
Nunavut territory is bordered by Manitoba and Saskatchewan to the south, Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea to the east, and the Northwest Territories to the west. Its territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) of land and water in Northern Canada including part of the mainland, most of the Arctic Archipelago, and all of the islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay, and Ungava Bay (including the Belcher Islands) which belonged to the Northwest Territories. It is almost 20% of Canada, and is larger than Alaska. Nunavut contains three regions—Kitikmeot, Kilvalliq (Keewatin) and Qikiqtani (formerly Baffin) — and 28 communities. Nunavut is both the least populated and the largest of the provinces and territories of Canada. It has a population of only about 30,000 spread over an area the size of Western Europe. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The land is in large part tundra, rock, frozen and snow-covered for more than half the year. Although there are rich mineral deposits, the lack of paved roads and an infrastructure, as well as the harsh climate, make the development of these resources difficult.
Nunavut (nOO'nuvOOt') territory is bordered by Manitoba and Saskatchewan to the south, Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea to the east, and the Northwest Territories to the west. Its territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) of land and water in Northern Canada including part of the mainland, most of the Arctic Archipelago, and all of the islands in Hudson Bay, James Bay, and Ungava Bay (including the Belcher Islands) which belonged to the Northwest Territories. It is almost 20% of Canada, and is larger than Alaska. Nunavut contains three regions—Kitikmeot, Kilvalliq (Keewatin) and Qikiqtani (formerly Baffin) — and 28 communities.
Nunavut includes Ellesmere Island to the north, as well as the eastern and southern portions of Victoria Island in the west. Nunavut is both the least populated and the largest of the provinces and territories of Canada. It has a population of only about 30,000 spread over an area the size of Western Europe. If Nunavut were a sovereign nation, it would be the least densely populated in the world: nearby Greenland, for example, has almost the same area and twice the population. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. There are three official languages, Inuktitut, English, and French.
The land is in large part tundra, rock, frozen and snow-covered for more than half the year. Although there are rich mineral deposits, the lack of paved roads and an infrastructure, as well as the harsh climate, make the development of these resources difficult.
Nunavut encompassess most of Canada's Arctic islands, including Ellesmere, Baffin, Devon, Prince of Wales, Southampton, and Coats, as well as the islands in Hudson and James bays.
The capital and largest town (population 4,200) is Iqaluit on Baffin Island at Frobisher Bay. The territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit, who make up 85% of the population, although control could change with population growth. Grise Ford, the northernmost city, (population less than 150) lies north of the Arctic Circle. Temperatures range from -40 degrees F in the winter to 5 degrees F in the summer. Inuit means "the people who are alive at this time" in Inuktitut and refers to the people of "Eskimoid" ancestry inhabiting northern Canada. The term Eskimo, a Cree Indian word meaning "eaters of raw meat," is no longer used in Nunavut.
The Inuit lived in the Nunavut region for thousands of years before the first European explorers arrived searching for a Northwest Passage. For all but the last 250 years or so of their history, they were free to govern their lives and manage their territory and resources according to Inuit needs and traditional practices. With the arrival of explorers first from Europe and later from North America, the Inuit way of life started to change, and they have had to struggle very hard to maintain control over their culture, territory and resources. The Inuit are in Canada one of three groups of Aboriginal peoples. The other two are the First Nations and the Métis.
The Inuit people used to hunt the caribou, seals, and fish for food, most Inuit now live in small communities that depend on trapping, sealing, mining such as diamonds, and the production of arts and crafts for their livelihood. There is a small tourist trade, lured by the wildlife and vast space, as well as Inuit cultural attractions.
The separation of Nunavut from the Canadian Northwest Territories began with a 1992 territorial referendum in which the electorate approved the move as part of the largest native land-claim settlement in Canadian history. The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government and the native Inuit people. The Inuit is one of the first indigenous peoples in the Americas to achieve self-government. The process concluded with the establishment of the new territory on April 1, 1999. The Nunavut land claims settlement, one of the most comprehensive and innovative land claims between an aborigine group and a state, gives the Inuit control over their economic, political, and cultural future. The Inuit hold outright title to about to 136,000 square miles of land, 17.6 % of Nunavut, including 13,896 sq mi (36,000 sq km) of subsurface mineral rights, 1.8% of Nunavut, $1.1 billion dollars in compensation, a share of mineral, oil, and gas development, the right to participate in decisions regarding the land and water resources, and rights to harvest wildlife on their lands.
Nunavut has an elected 19 members assembly, which will assume all governing powers by 2009. Members of the assembly are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Paul Okalik, an Inuit, was elected by the assembly as Nunavut's first premier; he was reelected in 2004. The territory sends one senator and one representative to the national parliament.
Nunavut's head of state is a Commissioner appointed by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As in the other territories, the commissioner's role is symbolic and is analogous to that of a lieutenant governor. While the Commissioner is not formally a representative of the Queen of Canada, a role roughly analogous to representing the Crown has accrued to the position. The members of the unicameral legislative assembly are elected individually; there are no parties and the legislature is consensus-based. The head of government, the premier of Nunavut, is elected by, and from the members of the legislative assembly.
The Nunavut government faces many challenges with high unemployment, low educational levels and little infrastructure. Some 90% of its budget currently comes from the Canadian government. There are no paved roads, and long-distance travel is largely by air.
The Inuit people face many issues including: aboriginal rights; concerns about both large scale development, especially the potential of oil exploration, and smaller scale or local development such as the establishment of northern tourism by outside interests; the need to formalize Inuit rights with respect to development and to establish appropriate mechanisms for Inuit participation, consultation and decision making powers; formulating policies, programmes and research for dealing with rights to territory and resources and concerns about the right to maintain traditional land use and harvesting practices.
The discovery of oil in the northern regions of Canada during the 1960s and 1970s stimulated aboriginal groups to bring several land claims against the Canadian Government.
Inuit Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements signing:
- November 11, 1975 - James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
- June 5, 1984 - Inuvialuit Final Agreement
- May 25, 1993 - Nunavut Final Agreement
- April 1, 1999 - Creation of Nunavut Territory
- January 22, 2005 - Nunatsiavut Final Agreement
In the pass, the Canadian Government took advantage of the Inuit to further its sovereignty agenda while ignoring their suggestions and demands. The importance of an equal partnership between the federal government and the Inuit regarding a future Northern Strategy should not have been underestimated. The Inuit have a very practical interest in stewardship in the North. The Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is a good start, but without the ability to enforce this Act at present, the likelihood of protecting Northern resources is unlikely.
Many Inuit initiatives have been noticed:
- the Commercial Renewable Resource Development policy
- the Aboriginal and Arctic Circumpolar Affairs committee
- Nunavut Wildlife Service Conflict Control Policy
- Indian and Northern Affairs’ Sustainable Development Strategy 2004-2006
- Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)
- Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)
Faced by criticism of his policies, Premier Paul Okalik set up an advisory council of eleven elders, whose function is to help incorporate "Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit" (Inuit culture and traditional knowledge, often referred to in English as "IQ") into the territory's political and governmental decisions. The territory has an annual budget of $700 million, provided almost entirely by the federal government. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin designated support for Northern Canada as one of his priorities, with an extra $500 million to be divided among the three territories.
The reasoning for the creation of new human settlements in Nunavut is that Nunavut territory covers 772,260 sq mi (2,000,671 sq km) and has a population of only about 30,000 spread over that area. The population density of Nunavut is thus 0.015 persons per square kilometer. The capital and largest town has a population of about 5000. So 1/6 of the entire population is found in an area of about 1000 sq km. The territory of Nunavut hardly qualifies to be a Global Community. I cannot say it is. The capital may qualify if it satisfies the test of being sustainable, without the federal government help, and the test of having a symbiotical relationship with Global Community.
Now the territory is effectively controlled by the Inuit people, who make up 85% of the population. This implies the Inuit people controls the government of Nunavut. In order to become a global community the government of Nunavut would have to help with the creation of several new large settlements over the entire area of Nunavut. That is to ask Canadians and people from other nations to move in and help them to settle in Nunavut.
It all means that Canada and Nunavut must invite and help settlers from around the world to come to Nunavut. It is the only way Canada can use the 'community' card in its claim of sovereighty and of ownership of the land and of all its natural resources, including the control of ge.
The Arctic Council is the leading multilateral forum in the Artic region and also includes the U.S., Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Russia.
Because the Cold War is over, protection of the North is not as urgent as it once was simply because the proximity of Russia to the US and Canada no longer represents an immediate threat. However, since the events of 9/11, the US and Canada focus is on continental security. The US would be unwise to aggravate relations with Canada at a time when cooperation is needed. The US should, therefore, abandon its insistence the Northwest Passage be designated an international strait in favour of Canadian control through its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in order to complete a security perimeter around the North. The US would be better served in the long run by abandoning its international strait argument and courting Canada for preferential treatment. In political terms, this would be referred to as a harmonization of policies.
Canada recently took over the leadership of the Arctic Council and will be succeeded by the U.S. in 2015. With back-to-back chairmanships, it gives both countries an opportunity to increase cooperation on initiatives that could enhance the development of a shared North American vision for the Arctic. The U.S. has significant geopolitical and economic interests in the high north and have released a new national strategy which seeks to advance their Arctic ambitions. While the region has thus far been peaceful, stable and free of conflict, there is a danger of the militarization of the Arctic. It has the potential to become a front whereby the U.S. and other NATO members are pitted against Russia or even China. In an effort to prevent any misunderstandings, there are calls for the Arctic Council to move beyond environmental issues and become a forum to address defense and security matters.
Canada assumed the chairmanship of the Arctic Council where members pushed for responsible resource development, safe shipping and sustainable circumpolar communities. During the recent meetings, members signed an Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic which seeks to improve coordination and planning to better cope with any such accidents. In addition, China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, along with Italy were granted permanent observer status in the Arctic Council. With the move, China has gained more influence in the region. The potential for new trade routes that could open up would significantly reduce the time needed to transport goods between Europe and Asia. The Arctic is an important part of China’s global vision, as a place for economic activity and a possible future mission for its navy. In order to better reflect the realities of politics in the high north, there are calls to expand the Arctic Council’s mandate to also include security and military issues.
While the Arctic Council is formally forbidden from discussing military security in the Arctic, the time has arrived to rethink this policy. 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.
Russia
Russian expedition Arktika 2007 made the first descent to the ocean bottom below the North Pole, and planted a titanium flag of Russia on the seabed. Submarines have in the past traveled below the Arctic ice cap, but this is the first time man has reached the seabed below the North Pole. The Mir-1 and a second Mir-2 submarine faced the challenge of diving 13,980 feet (4,261 metres) deep, and then having to resurface at the exact location where they've submerged, because they are not strong enough to penetrate the ice themselves. The nuclear ice-breaker vessel Rossiya was keeping the ice open for the research ship and the submarines.
The expedition ship Akademik Fyodorov was carrying over 100 scientists to the North Pole. Apart from the purely scientific goal of a comprehensive study of the climate and seabed at the North Pole, this expedition may help Russia to enlarge its territory by more than one million square kilometers, the Russia's Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute said. The mini-submarine Mir-1 has successfully reached the Arctic seabed. "Our mission is to remind the whole world that Russia is a great polar and research power," said expedition leader and deputy speaker of the Russian parliament Artur Chilingarov, who has been named presidential envoy to the Arctic by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Some Western politicians have portrayed the planting of Russia's flag on the seabed as Russia's territorial claim. Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark (through Greenland) have an Exclusive Economic Zone 200 miles north of their Arctic coastline, established under international laws. Russia is claiming a larger area, extending to the North Pole, saying that a continental shelf called the Lomonosov Ridge runs from Siberia on the Arctic seabed to the North Pole. As such, it would be an extension of Russian territory.
In 2001, Russia made a case with the United Nations to extend its boundaries to the Arctic, but the U.N. requested more scientific data to strengthen the Russian case. The current mission is collecting evidence to submit another request in 2009, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada and Denmark last year sent out a joint mission to establish whether the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories, and Norway is investigating this possibility too. Last May, U.S. senator Richard Lugar (Rep, Indiana) said that it would be difficult to negotiate about Russia's claims as long as the U.S. has not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any issues about Russia's claims would be resolved "in strict compliance with international law." The claimed territory could contain undiscovered natural resources such as oil and gas.
All the technology in the world to get to the Moon, and now Mars, all the hard work, all the sweat and pain endured, and more, much more, to finally put a flag on the Moon. Amazing human achievement! We can really be proud of a team that did it.
How does this relate to Canada's sovereighty in the North?
The question should be how does this relate to ownership of the Earth?
Does putting a flag on the Moon gives you ownership of the Moon?
Does putting a flag on Mars gives you ownership of the planet?
Does discovering the Americas by explorers gave them ownership of the Americas?
Does climbing Mount Everest gives ownership of the mountain?
Does Canada own the Northwest Passage or Nunavut?
Uninterrupted exploitation of energy, mineral and forest resources are expected to continue in Russia Artic. Interests of China and Japan in the Russian Far East are growing. A proper Earth governance is needed to deal with activities going on in the Artic region. Environment protection is crucial.
Both Canada and Russia claim navigable straits in the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and ge under their exclusive control. The US asserts that the ice-covered straits of the NSR are international and subject to the right of transit passage while Russia claims the straits as internal waters. Denmark and Norway are challenging these claims. The point of argument is the way to increase share of the Arctic riches, claiming overlapping parts of the region. They are also disputing over the control of the still frozen shipping routes.
An Arctic Forum meeting was held in the Russian capital of Moscow and organized by the Russian Geographic Society together with Russia’s press agency RIA Novosti, brought together hundreds of scientists and politicians hailing from countries bordering the Arctic region and from countries located farther away. During the forum Russia's government claimed over large parts of the North Pole which is covered by an icecap. Previously, in 2007, Russia already had pushed its claims, when its scientists had boarded a mini-submarine and had planted a rust-free flag of their nation on the bottom of the North Pole. Earlier yet, in 2001, Russia had submitted its bid to ownership over the underwater ridge known as ‘Lomonosov’ to the United Nations, arguing that the given geographic formation is an extension of Russia’s continental shelf. As Russian news reports on the Arctic Forum indicate, - Russia believes its claim to 1.2 million kilometer of the Arctic circle are in line with the rules set by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Denmark (Greenland)
The border is established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program.
The Danish "Celebration Expedition" of 1920 to 1923 accurately mapped the whole region of the Northern Greenland coast from Cape York (Kap York) to Denmark Sound (Danmark fjord).
The economic value of a short waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans was the subject of many early dreams. English explorers, including Martin Frobisher, John Davis and Henry Hudson searched for it from the Atlantic side in the late 1500's and early 1600's. These expeditions were unsuccessful.
Explorations continued through the 1600's and 1700's without success. Then in 1849 Robert McClure passed through the Bering Strait with the intent of sailing through to the Atlantic. His ship was trapped in the ice not far from making it to Viscount Melville Sound and probable passage to the Atlantic. After spending three winters on the ice McClure and crew were rescued by a sledge party from one of Sir Edward Belcher's ships and transported by to the Sound. McClure and his crew became the first to survive a trip through the Northwest Passage.
In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. The status of Hans Island was not addressed. However, decades later, Denmark would claim that geological evidence pointed to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and therefore that it belongs to Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling.
The border was established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program.
Hans Island
From 1850 to 1880, the area in which Hans Island is situated was explored by American and British expeditions. Reasons of these expeditions were to search for the missing British explorer John Franklin, and for the elusive Northwest Passage.
Since the 1960s, a few surveys have been made in the Nares Strait region: ice flow, seismic, mapping, archeological and economic surveys. From 1980 to 1983, Canadian-based Dome Petroleum Ltd. investigated the movement of ice masses and also made surveys on and around Hans Island.
Hans Island is a small, uninhabited barren island, located in the centre of the Kennedy Channel of Nares Strait — the waterway that separates Ellesmere Island from northern Greenland, a territory of Denmark, and connects Baffin Bay with the Lincoln Sea. This island is uninhabited and is only 1.3 km² (0.5 mi²) in size. Hans Island is the subject of a well-reported dispute over Canada’s land territory in the Arctic. The island is claimed by both Canada and Denmark as sovereign territory. These competing claims have never been finally settled in international law. A 1973 agreement between Canada and Denmark on the delimitation of the continental shelf between Greenland and Canada did not resolve the issue.
Canada’s ability to show control over Hans Island represents a significant indicator of Canada’s ability to exercise sovereignty over its Arctic territory. Former National Defence Minister Bill Graham visited the island in July 2005, as did Canadian military personnel, who placed a Canadian flag on the territory. The Danish navy made similar visits in 2002 and 2003.
In 1972, a team consisting of personnel from the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Danish personnel, working in the Nares Strait determined the geographic coordinates for
Hans Island. During negotiations between Canada and Denmark on Northern maritime boundaries in 1973, Canada claimed that Hans Island was part of its territory. No agreement
was ever reached between the two governments on the issue.
Canada’s Arctic territory and waters have been given increasing attention as areas for the:
- billions of dollars in transportation costs could be saved each year
- vast mineral resources of the Canadian North will be much easier and economical to develop
- ship routes from Europe to Japan, China and other eastern destinations would be 4000 kilometers shorter
- exploration and shipping of resources, including oil, gas, minerals, and fish
- eastern portion of the Northwest Passage is important from a commercial and a strategic standpoint as it means a significant economy of time and fuel
- pristine waters of the North make up 10 per cent of the world's freshwater and will eventually become a hot international commodity worth more than oil
- oil and gas pools under the frigid Arctic waters
- oil produced in Alaska could move quickly by ship to eastern North American and European markets
- besides pipelines, the Passage could represent an expedient way to transport large amounts of oil from the west to the east coast of Canada and the US
- huge diamond deposits
- minerals and metals that are just beneath the surface near Cambridge Bay
- facilitate Canada's development of northern lands and provide an important economic and military possession
- astonishing beauty of the North is itself a natural resource
- glaciers are made of the purest drinking waters on Earth
- vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea
floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders
Since the 1960s, a few surveys have been made in the Nares Strait region: ice flow, seismic, mapping, archeological and economic surveys. From 1980 to 1983, Canadian-based Dome Petroleum Ltd. investigated the movement of ice masses and also made surveys on and around Hans Island.
The Arctic region has featured prominently in debates about Canadian sovereignty. Canada’s identity and well-being as a country must not rest solely with ownership of the Northwest Passage. There has been a renewed focus on the Arctic due to the effects of climate change in the region, notably the melting of the polar ice caps. At the same time, there are continuing strategic issues relating to potential incursions into Canadian Arctic territory at various levels – airspace, surface (terrestrial and maritime), and sub-surface (by nuclear submarines). Canada’s ability to detect and monitor such territorial incursions and to enforce sovereign claims over its Arctic territory in such cases has been questioned. Canada’s identity needs to include monitoring of the Northwest Passage, and drawing new legislation for enforcement of Canadian sovereignty.
Other countries, including the United States, Russia, Denmark, Japan, China, and Norway, as well as the European Union, have expressed increasing interest in the region and differing claims in relation to international law. As the ice melts, the shipping route through Canada’s Arctic waters will be open to increased shipping activity in the coming decades. Canada’s assertion that the Northwest Passage represents internal, territorial waters has been challenged by other countries, including the United States, which argue that these waters constitute an international waterway. Interest in the region’s economic potential has resulted in discussions of increased resource exploration and disputed sub-surface resources, as well as concerns over environmental degradation, control and regulation of shipping activities, and protection of northern inhabitants. It is important to note that the Arctic is a vast and remote territory that presents many difficulties in terms of surveillance, regulation, and infrastructure development.
At the moment there are several ways Canada’s Arctic presence is being applied:
-
The Canadian Coast Guard operates a fleet of five icebreakers that guide foreign vessels through Canada’s Arctic waters and assist in harbour breakouts, routing, and northern resupply. These icebreakers are often the only federal resource positioned in a particular area of the Arctic, and they must also serve in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic.
- The Canadian Forces Northern Area (CFNA) is headquartered in Yellowknife. CFNA headquarters comprises 65 Regular Force, Reserve, and civilian personnel. CFNA military activities per year include two Sovereignty Operations (Army), two Northern Patrols (flights of Aurora patrol aircraft), 10-30 Sovereignty Patrols (CFNA), and one Enhanced Sovereignty Patrol. As part of the Canadian Forces Transformation, CFNA assumes a greater command and control function. CFNA is now the Northern regional headquarters of Canada Command.
- Within the CFNA, the Canadian Ranger Patrol Group provides a military presence in northern and remote areas by conducting patrols, monitoring Canada’s northern territory, and collecting information. These part-time reservists comprise a significant element of Canada’s northern presence.
- As part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Canada maintains a chain of unmanned radar sites, the North Warning System (NWS). The NWS provides limited aerospace surveillance of Canadian and United States Arctic territory. In addition, Canada’s Department of National Defence recently announced the creation of Project Polar Epsilon, which will provide all-weather, day/night [surface] observation of Canada’s Arctic region, using information from Canada’s RADARSAT 2 satellite, by May 2009.
- As per the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, all vessels in the Northwest Passage are subjected to search for pollution control verification purposes; this way would-be terrorists, smugglers and criminals might consider an alternate route. Currently, vessels voluntarily declare their adherence to the conditions of the Act.
The Canadian Navy does not currently have the capacity to operate within the Arctic ice. Canada requires more all-season icebreaker capabilities in order to properly monitor and patrol the area.
Shell Oil operates around the world and their Industry standard is one of pressuring governments to allow exploration of oil and gas resources in a way that maximizes profits for them at the expense of the environment and human rights, in particular those of Indigenous peoples. Nearly every large multi-national company come into our homelands. The problem with their presence here is that these big oil companies like Shell have a proven record of negligence and a legacy of pollution in Alaska. Shell itself is encumbered with their own appalling record of Indigenous rights violations, human rights abuses and a trail of broken promises within Indigenous territories in Canada, Nigeria, and Russia. Despite their own destructive record, they expect that Americans and the Inupiat among other Alaska Indigenous coastal tribes will trust them when it comes to offshore development of the Arctic Ocean’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas? The future of these Oceans and People are in their hands. A scary thought in itself.
First of all, the profit-at-all-cost mentality of corporations is the primary threat to indigenous people and the ecosystem that sustains their way of life. Indigenous peoples subsistence rights are intrinsic to the environment due to the intimate connection we have in relation to our physical nourishment, health, cultural practices, spirituality, and social systems. The reality is, the ecosystem, when left intact, is the greatest assurance that subsistence rights will remain intact. Therefore when there is discussion of ensuring subsistence rights in the terms of development it is an absolute contradiction.
Members of the Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) attended the Royal Dutch Shell AGM to confront the Chairman and Board over Shell’s decision to pursue highly risky ‘extreme energy’ projects without adequate consultation and accommodation of Indigenous communities. Projects such as Arctic offshore drilling and tar sands will have little long-term benefit for the company, and expose it to reputational damage, political and financial risk, including litigation.
Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) sent Mae Hank, Inupiat from Point Hope Alaska to be our representative at the Shell AGM to address the Chairman, Board and Shareholders on behalf of her Community. They wanted to show Shell that their risky Alaska offshore plans for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas impact Indigenous Peoples, the Inupiat of Alaska directly and all Indigenous coastal communities down the western coastline of Alaska indirectly. Sending Mae was a tactic to put a human face to their drilling projects. They felt that they needed a reality check, to be confronted with the human element, not just a financial statistic of their endeavours. They also need to realize that there is a large majority of Inupiat that oppose Shell’s offshore plans and they should not buy the company line “Inupiat support offshore development” Shell lies.
Shell must understand the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of the Arctic Ocean are critical to the Indigenous people of Alaska’s Arctic Slope, the Inupiat and their subsistence way of life, which is interdependent with the marine ecosystem of the Arctic Oceans. The Beaufort and Chukchi Seas provide critical habitat for the endangered bowhead whale, beluga whales, gray whales, walruses, seals and polar bears as well as staging and molting areas for migratory birds among them threatened spectacled and Steller’s eiders. The Inupiat call the ocean their garden. It provides for all their physical, spiritual, cultural and social needs. The relationship of the people to the ocean runs deep.
In spite of the inundation of substantial problems throughout and after the drilling season, Shell continued it’s efforts for exploratory drilling in 2014 in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The massive drilling plans project an estimated 174 exploratory and extraction wells within critical habitats of culturally sensitive marine mammals. Shell Oil and associated agencies lack huge gaps of information of the harsh conditions, current and tidal systems, ever changing and unpredictable ice, and dangers of the Arctic Ocean; in turn, which could potentially lead to a very large oil spill. An oil spill in the remote Arctic ecosystem would be devastating – currently, there is no effective way to clean up an oil spill in Arctic conditions, and there is a lack of infrastructure in the region to support an adequately safe drilling or cleanup program.
The company has spent $4.5bn securing permits to drill in Arctic waters, however they have been proven incapable of operating here. Shell’s experiences should serve as a reality check as decisions are made about whether to authorize these activities in the future. This is why we sent Mae Hank to the Shell AGM, to assert that Shell should not move forward with Arctic Drilling! After the Shell AGM, Mae spoke eloquently about the experience:
There is still no viable spill plan in place not only for cleaning up spills but how the company will compensate our community for the loss of food and food security. When asking the Chairman and the Board to explain how they would compensate the community’s food security and needs when the next major oil spill disaster happens. The Chairman and the board simply danced around the question and did nothing to quell my concerns.
When it comes to offshore drilling in Alaska the risks outweigh the benefits in this case, and there is absolutely no way that shell can operate safely in the Arctic environment under the cover of darkness, severe cold weather, perilous storms and broken ice conditions. To date there is still no viable spill plan in place. Drilling offshore in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas resumes we could be left with another spill like the deepwater horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the destruction of one of our planet’s most vital ecosystems.
From an economic perspective, the protection of natural resources can be accomplished by working on new policies. From the local to the global level we need to shift taxes off of labor and productive capital and onto land and natural resource rents. In other words, we need to privatize labor (wages) and socialize rent (the value of surface land and natural resources). This public finance shift will promote the cooperatization of the ownership of capital in a gradual way with minimal government control of the production and exchange of individual and collective wealth. Natural monopolies (infrastructure, energy, public transportation) should be owned and/or controlled or regulated by government at the most local level that is practical.
The levels of this public finance shift can be delineated thusly: municipalities and localities to collect the surface land rents within their jurisdiction. Regional governing bodies to collect resource rents for forest lands, mineral, oil and water resources; the global level needs a Global Resource Agency to collect user fees for transnational commons such as satellite geostationary orbits, royalties on minerals mined or fish caught in international waters and the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
An added benefit of this form of public finance is that it provides a peaceful way to address conflicts over land and natural resources. Resource rents should be collected and equitably distributed and utilized for the benefit of all, either in financing social services and/or in direct citizen dividends in equal amount to all individuals.
A portion of revenues could pass from the lower to the higher governance levels or vice versa as needed to ensure a just development pattern worldwide and needed environmental restoration.
In the area of monetary policy we need seignorage reform, which means that money should be issued as spending by governments, not as debt by private banking institutions. We also need guaranteed economic freedoms to create local and regional currencies on a democratic and transparent basis.
Global Community must be able to project power into the Arctic environment and extensive Arctic training is needed to do that. Some have pointed out that the true nature surrounding U.S. plans to shift additional missile interceptors to Alaska is not to protect against a North Korean threat, but is instead aimed at control over Arctic resources. Meanwhile, there have also been renewed discussions about Canadian participation in the U.S. anti-ballistic missile shield, a move that could damage relations with Russia and China. In order to enhance its presence and security in the Arctic, the U.S. is increasing cooperation with Canada. This includes expanding joint military exercises and intelligence gathering operations in the region. Washington's militarization of the Arctic is part of the process of North American integration.
Even though NATO has yet to truly define its role in the area, Arctic member countries are stepping up military and naval operations in the high Artic. In the future, NATO's mandate could include economic infrastructure and maritime security. It could also serve as a forum for discussing Arctic military issues. Expanding NATO activity in the region might signal the militarization of the Arctic which could raise tensions with both Russia and China.
There are fears that the Arctic could become an arena for political and military competition. With potential new shipping routes and countries further staking their claims to the vast untapped natural resources, defending strategic and economic interests may lead to rivalries in the region. There is also the possibility that conflicts which originate in other parts of the world could spillover and affect the stability of the Arctic.
During the Cold War, lacking the finances and manpower, Canada had little choice but to turn to the United States for military presence and weapons. These collaborative defence efforts to guard against a common nuclear threat, while maximizing Canada’s security, also maximized Canada’s potential loss of sovereignty.
Furthermore, today's Prime Minister Harper, head of the Conservatives,
has already spent several billion taxpayers dollars toward the military invasion of Afghanistan.
If Canada wish to help the people of Middle East nations and of others nearby it would be better to offer refugees to resettle in Nunavut.
This Canadian spending helps President Obama in many ways. Bush needed an ally for his own invasion of the Middle East to gain control over the oil and gas resources. While the Canadians taxpayers are spending their money in Afghanistan, they are not spending money to gain control over the Canadian Northern Passage and strengthening Canada's sovereignty in the North. That is what the White House wants no matters who is at the helm, Republicans or Democrates alike. The US can see the immense benefits of the North: energy, fresh water, minerals, Northwest Passage, etc. They would not want a Canadian Prime Minister who would buy a Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol Canada's northern border or spend real money to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic.
Both, today PM Harper and, previously, PM Brian Mulroney, promised building an ice breaker ship fot the Artic, but never got to do it. They were just trying to get votes before an election.
Building global communities requires a mean to enforce global law that protects all life on Earth.
Global Protection Agency will train and lead a global force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping and military bodies such as the United Nations and NATO.
This is a great opportunity for globallateralism.
The Global Protection Agency (GPA) is leading a group of people in the world who participate in:
a) peacekeeping or peacemaking mission;
b) creating global ministries for:
1. the policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and
2. the development of strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.
c) enforcing global law;
d) saving the Earth's genetic heritage;
e) keeping the world healthy and at peace;
f) protecting the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet;
g) dealing with the impacts of: global poverty, lack of drinking water and food, global warming and the global climate change, threat to security, conflicts and wars,
lack of good quality soil for agriculture, polluted air, water and land, overcrownded cities, more new and old diseases out of control, widespread drugs, Global rights
abuses, world overpopulation, and lack of resources;
h) broadening the traditional focus of the security of states to include both the security of people as well as that of the
planet. Global security policies include:
* every person on Earth has a right to a secure existence, and all states have an obligation to protect those rights
* prevention of conflicts and wars; identification, anticipation, and resolving conflicts before they become armed confrontations. The Earth
Court of Justice will help here.
* military force is not a legitimate political instrument
* weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence
* eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from all nations and have inspectors verifying progress to that effect
* all nations should sign and ratify the conventions to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
* the production and trade in arms should be listed as a criminal act against humanity; this global ministry will introduce a
Convention on the curtailment of the arms trade, a provision for a mandatory Arms Register and the prohibition of the financing or
subsidy of arms exports by governments
* the development of military capabilities is a potential threat to the security of people and all life on Earth; the ministry
will make the demilitarization of global politics a high priority.
* anticipating and managing crises before they escalate into armed conflicts and wars
* maintaining the integrity of the environment and global life-support systems
* managing the environmental, economic, social, political and military conditions that threatened the security of people and all life on the planet
* over the past decades and even now today, all Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (mostly the United States, Russia and Britain) were responsible for selling weapons and war equipment. These three nations are required to give back to Global Community an amount of 8 trillion dollars (American) as a payment for the immense damage they have caused in the world. They have created a culture of violence throughout the world. They are nation bullies, nation predators. They are responsible for economic mismanagement, ethnic tensions, crimes, drug abuse, high unemployment, urban stress, worldwide poverty, and pressures on natural resources. Most conflicts in the world are direct legacies of cold war power politics, senseless politics. Other conflicts were caused by the end of the cold war and the collapse of old regimes. Other factors have combined to increase tension: religious, economical, political, and ethnic aspects. The dollar fine is to be administered by Global Parliament.
In the past, security was thought as better accomplished through military means. Expanding the military capabilities and forming alliances with other nations were the only way to 'win'. Today wars are unlikely to produce winners. Global Community is all over the planet. Ethnic groups are everywhere.
The world is too crowded and too small nowadays! And weapons too lethal! So security cannot be achieved through the military. The only job the military should be asked to do today is to protect the global life-support systems. These systems have the highest priority on the Scale of Global Rights and are certainly more important than any of the other rights on the Scale including security. Simply because without life there is no other right possible. Without Oxygen there is no life! Without clean water there is no life! So protect life on Earth at all costs.
Wars are the biggest threat to life and the ecosystem of the planet. Primordial human rights come next on the Scale of Global Rights. Without a shelter life will still exist in some places but is not possible in cold place.
So security must be achieved by other means than wars. We might as well shelved the war industry from humanity right now and that means phasing out all nuclear, biological, chemical weapons right now. No waiting! That also means having inspectors verifying the phasing out in all nations of the world, and not just in some Middle East country.
There are many threats to security other than the threats to the global life-support systems and threat caused by weapons of mass destruction and the threats to
the sovereignty of a state, and they include:
* the proliferation of conventional small arms
* the terrorizing of civilian populations by domestic groups
* gross violations of Global Rights
Global security can only be achieved if it can be shared by all peoples and through global co-operation, based on principles as explained in the Global Constitution such as justice, human dignity, and equity for all and for the good of all. All people and states are protected by Global Community.
The Global Protection Agency provides leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping and Earth security 
so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications that they can work with each other.
To act as a global policing force, as the GPA aspires to do, many foundations must be laid, especially regarding the move from wielding power derived from
Global Community to legitimate global leadership. There are many required characteristics that are prerequisite for legitimate leadership:
1. Legitimate leadership is built upon trust. Those who are led must largely believe that the leader is committed to integrity, honesty, and transparent inquiry into problems. The leader’s actions must align with his words
2. Legitimate leadership rests upon checks and balances, which are necessary to ensure power is not corrupted.
3. Legitimate leadership is an act of service. Those in power must show a primary interest in the good of the collective ahead of their self-interest. In this way, true leaders are mission-centered rather than self-centered.
4. Legitimate leadership empowers others appropriately rather than concentrating power disproportionately. In other words, true leaders produce more leaders and empower them as situations demand.
5. Legitimate leadership is visionary, carrying the torch of a possible future.
6. Legitimate leadership is willing to lead by example, including following a foundation of ethics, performing more than one’s share of work, and making sacrifices where appropriate.
7. Legitimate leadership is compassionately fierce when something undermines the good of the whole.
In a company this might mean the CEO fires a slacking employee. In a city, the police may jail a murderer. On a global level, this might even mean
arresting those breaking global law.
The defence function of a leader requires that he safeguard the good of the whole by whatever the most skillful means are to accomplish that defence.
While that is not a comprehensive catalog of leadership prerequisites, those few requirements are foundational and relatively unquestionable. Without at least a solid foundation of those requirements, the GPA’s actions among nation-states will remain those of a unilateralist leader rather than a global leader. Global Community should be legitimated in the role of a global leader among nation-states and validated as an enforcer of global law. Global Community offers a few recommendations for actions that would strengthen and legitimate the GPA’s role as a true global leader by gradually creating an international structure that better safeguards the whole than we can ever do now as a unilateralist leader.
The GPA recommendations:
1. Ban military action in all parts of the world;
2. Lead the way in creating legitimate power for Global Parliament, subjecting ourselves and multinational corporations to taxation that generates money for programs
that are focused on world betterment and world problems. As a mark of our global leadership, we should commit a greater percentage of our resources to this effort
than any other organization.
3. Hold ourselves to a high standard of compliance around global treaties that aim for collective benefit and the redress of economic, environmental, military,
and political problems. Our adherence should be exemplary. Or, if we truly question the merit of a global accord, we should lead the way in creating agreements
that even better serve the global interest rather than simply ignoring or undermining the existing attempts.
4. Exert strong global leadership on multinational solutions to pressing health, environmental, and other problems. We should propose innovative new solutions and show leadership in carrying them out, especially in areas such as clean energy development.
5. Take seriously the process of coming clean by exposing corporate interests in politics, lobbying by powerful organizations,
subsidies of fringe military groups, etc. When our global government officials commit to be honest and transparent, a much deeper foundation of international trust will be built.
As we enact global law, we will begin to take on a much deeper kind of global leadership, one that earns more respect than envy and more gratitude than hatred, one that can catapult the whole planet forward into a future where war is no longer thinkable between nation-states and a legitimate and beneficial global government is able to cope with global problems.
I believe that there is no greater task in the world today than for Global Community to proceed through the maturation of its leadership, emerging from a more self-interested adolescence as a global leader into a nobler adulthood. We have the potential to act as a torchbearer for a better tomorrow. Do we heed the call? I hope this message has convinced at least a few people that the question of how to proceed with that maturation is of far deeper significance than the reforming of the United Nations. I thus pray that we move with wisdom, grace, clarity, and love in the days, years, and even decades ahead.
Global Community is promoting the settling of disputes between nations through the process of the Earth Court of Justice. Justice for all is what we want. Justice is a universal value for anyone, anywhere, and in any situations. All nations have to be educated of the new way for the good of all.
Global Community is promoting that the creation of a new nation does not have to be at the expenses of human lives and destruction of an entire world. It can and should always be done through a decision made by a higher Court. We are promoting the immediate use of this higher Court, the Earth Court of Justice to hear cases and to prosecute those nations, corporations, communities, individuals who commit crimes
such as:
* nation states in disagreement with Global Law
* national political and military leaders accountable for violations of international humanitarian law
* 'core' crimes of genocide
* crimes against humanity and Global Rights
* war crimes
* crimes with significant impacts perpetuated against the life-support systems of the planet (for instance wars and use of weapons of widespread destruction are listed under this category)
* crimes related to the relentless misused of the Earth resources
* environmental crimes
* social crimes as the Court may see apply
* crimes stemming from the global ministries
The Earth Court of Justice will also rule on global problems and concerns such as the creation of a new nation in the world, and disputing territories or land between nations.
The Statute of the Earth Court of Justice will be established later.
The Earth Court of Justice established by the Global Constitution as the principal organ of Global Community shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the Statute.
The Court will also be asked to decide on
* the formation of a new nation in the world,
* on disputed lands between nations,
* the de-institutionalization of market speculation, and
* the annulment of the debt of poor or 'developing' nations as the loans are actually a form of global tax given by the rich nations to the poorer ones. The IMF and World Bank loans are called taxes from the rich nations paid to the 'developing' nations; these loans/taxes are really a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and 'developing' countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards. These loans/taxes are not to be paid back to the rich nations.
The Court decides in accordance with the following Commons:
* the Scale of Global Rights,
* the Global Constitution 
* Global Law
* the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act
* the belief, values, principles and aspirations of Global Community,
* international treaties and conventions in force,
* international custom,
* the general principles of law, and
* as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.
For our survival as Global Community, and as a collective intelligence, we need to learn about ecological dangers we face, their causes, and how to render them harmless. We all have a strong moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth. Local, community-based economies, are crucial for the well-being of our children, and to make global communities a reality.
The impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. Because only a few people have control over so much of the Earth, our democracy is no longer based on equal rights to the Earth and of its natural resources. This causes a fundamental threat to democracy. What has become of democracy? What has become "we the people? " To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must be based on the principle of equal rights to the Earth.
We need to take a giant step forward to a new form of democracy. How the Earth should be owned is the major economic question of this time. The world should be owned not just by the people living in it but by all life on Earth.
Planet Earth is humanity's inheritance. The land, water, air, and the wonderful other bounty of natural resources were not human made. Everyone, all lifeforms, has a common right and ownership to their uses. We must recognize the rightful claim of every person to inherit an equitable portion of Earth's natural bounty. That is humanity common heritage.
Can the world become a better place to live in? Of course it can! The means of a great change are at our fingertips. With the aid of the telephone, radio, TV, computers, communications media and devices worldwide, and web sites for information and teaching, we can inspire a new global support for opinion that will enable us all to harvest Earth's bounty. Let us all act together! Let us all participate in a Global Dialogue. Let us launch a global campaign for the restoration and renewal of our planet and ourselves as one humanity. Let us promote the creative actions and the ideas that are healing and nurturing people and planet.
Global Community has proposed a new democratic mandate recognizing that land, air, oil and natural gas, minerals, all other natural resources
rightly belong to global communities. The Earth is our birthright and our common heritage. What we make from our mental and physical labor can rightfully be held as individual property but the profit of the Earth should be shared by all life. The unjust and inequitable ownership of the land and of all other natural resources have caused the great majority of local-to-global conflicts and wars, and the global warming of our planet. And now our global life-support systems are under threat. Let us appreciate the commons that are truly important for all life survival.
The commons are based on the notion that just by being members of the human family, we all have rights to certain common heritages, such as the atmosphere and oceans, freshwater and genetic diversity, and culture. In most traditional societies, it was assumed that what belonged to one belonged to all. Many indigenous societies to this day cannot conceive of denying a person or a family basic access to food, air, land, water and livelihood. Many modern societies extended the same concept of universal access to the notion of a social commons, creating education, health care and social security for all members of the community. For example, since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, governments are obliged to protect the human rights, cultural diversity and food security of their citizens.
Equitable access to natural resources is another key character of the commons. These resources are not there for the taking by private interests who can then deny them to anyone without means. The human right to land, food, water, health care and biodiversity should all be codified as Global Parliament has done by developing the Scale of Global Rights, Global Constitution, and the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act.
The core concept needed by Global Community for a better tomorrow is to manage our planet, to take charge and take care of our planet with fair benefits for all. To accomplish this, four major responsibilities need to be addressed: Ecology, Earth governance and management, sovereignty and land ownership, and ethics.
Today, we describe societal benefits from the natural world as ecosystem services. These services are very important to survival, our enjoyment of a decent quality of life, and contributes to the wellbeing of humanity.
Ecology
The Earth's ecological problems stem largely from our collective failure to share. It is now increasingly evident that only by sharing the world's natural resources more equitably and sustainably will we be able to address both the ecological and social crisis we face as a Global Community.
All major habitat types across the planet are substantially degraded with alarming implications for their continued capacity to support human well-being into the long-term future.
So, how do we go about adapting our behaviours to manage in a sustainable way the many environmental commons upon which we rely but have consistently overlooked in decision-making at the very least since the outset of the Industrial Revolution?
A first priority is the protection and care of the environment and natural resources, including creatures large and small. Everyone should be encouraged to think and act as an Earth manager and support an Earth care initiative. At this moment global warming is a major problem. Everyone should seek to reduce its causes, and everyone can further these goals by thinking and acting as an Earth manager and by joining in the observance of one great global holiday: Life Day Celebration on May 26 of each year .
Earth governance and management
Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities. We the Peoples, Global Community, are reaffirming faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and smalll. We the Peoples implies every individual on Earth. Earth management and good governance is now a priority and a duty of every responsible person on Earth.
Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. Global Community must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. And these needs are the global commons that have always existed throughout humanity history. They are the primordial human rights on the Scale of Global Rights.
Earth governance gives a new meaning to the notions of territoriality, and non-intervention in a state way of life, and it is about protecting the cultural heritage of a state. Diversity of cultural and ethnic groups is an important aspect of Earth governance. Earth governance is a balance between the rights of states with rights of people, and the interests of nations with the interests of the Global Community, the human family, the global civil society. Earth governance is about the rights of states to self-determination in the global context of Global Community rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states. Although Global Community ensures state governments that it will obey the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, it will also stand for the rights and interests of the people within individual states in which the security of people is extensively endangered. A global consensus to that effect will be agreed upon by all Member Nations.
The major transition to a more sustainable world lies in the distinction between, on the one hand, the ownership of land and other key natural resources and, on the other, the many benefits that these ecosystems provide to people regardless of ownership. The old ways are no longer morally nor even economically acceptable.
Sovereignty and land ownership
Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property or a commodity. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to all natural resources.
Global Community concept of land ownership states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone as a birthright.
On the other hand, soveveignty is the status of a person or group of persons having supreme and independent political authority. The concept of sovereignty is related to the concept of power: power over a territory, land and water, oil and minerals, as well as life on Earth. The United Nations (UN) cannot have normal attributes of sovereignty, which has been defined around a territory and population.
With sovereignty one can speak of citizenship. Global Community Citizenship is offered to anyone who accepts the Criteria of Global Community Citizenship as a way of life. It is time now to take the oath of global community citizenship. We all belong to this greater whole, the Earth, the only known place in the universe we can call our home.
Criteria for sovereignty and land ownership
Global Community has established the criteria for sovereignty and land ownership of 'a global community of a million people'.
- a global community is in place
- a typical community has a population of one million people
- the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living
- the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Global Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems
- a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and Global Community
- a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life
- Earth management and taxation of all Earth natural resources
The definition of sovereignty and the Criteria help in understanding Canada's position in the Artic. Sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a state’s right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity,
and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the land’s inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority.
However, sovereignty has also been defined in terms of state responsibility. This includes a state’s exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security and protection of the environment, the planetary ecosystems.
A very important legislation was the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act which was approved by Global Parliament, defined rights, responsibility and accountability of all global citizens. Each and everyone of us will make decisions, deal with one another, and basically conduct our actions as per the Act.
Following this thinking we see land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries.
A global symbiotical relationship is created between nations and Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to reach out willing Member Nations from different parts of the world.
Ethics
Global Community ethics embrace the process of understanding what is truly important for humanity’s survival on our planet, and that the Scale of Global Rights gives Peoples the moral foundation for a better individual and community. Global Community ethical grounds are practical, real, and applicable for all women and men of good will, religious and non-religious.
One of the greatest causes of disagreement in humanity's history have been the conflicting views of different religions. And at the same time it is religion that has most effectively fostered humanitarian actions. The question is, can the obvious benefits in different religions be approved and supported without approving that part of their faith with which we differ?
Allegiance to a faith dealing with the mysteries of life: Why are we here? Is there a future life? Is there a God? often provides meaning and incentives for a virtuous life. But each person must temper their belief by recognizing any virtue they see in peoples with a different hypothesis or religious beliefs about the mysteries of life. The Golden Rule Principle, also called the Ethic of Reciprocity by theologians, says: "Dont do to others what you wouldn't want done to you." Or treat others the way you would want to be treated. The Golden Rule has a moral aspect found in each religion or faith. It could be used as a global ethic. Every faith is unanimous of saying that every individual should be treated with the same respect and dignity we all seek for ourselves. As a first step in bringing together religious leaders all around the world, the Global Community is presenting here 13 statements that unify us all in one Golden Rule .
Promoting an action program for Ethics of Earth with these redemptive policies would quickly bring new attitudes of trust and hope, a change of heart worldwide.
The principle of sharing has always formed the basis of social relationships in societies across the world. We all know from personal experience that sharing is central to family and community life, and the importance of sharing is also a key component of many of the world’s religions. Given the importance of the principle of sharing in human life, it is logical to assume that it should play an important role in the way we organise economies and manage the world natural resources.
Humanity currently consumes 50 percent more natural resources than the earth can sustainably produce, which means we already require the equivalent of one and a half planets to support our consumption levels.
This calculation does not even take into account the massive growth in consumption that is widely predicted to take place over coming decades, in which the global middle class is expected to grow from under 2 billion consumers today to nearly 5 billion by 2030. Clearly, the ecological consequences of increased consumption across the world will be severe.
For too long, governments have put profit and growth before the welfare of all people and the sustainability of the biosphere. Public policy under the influence of neoliberalism has created a world economy that is structurally dependent upon unsustainable levels of production and consumption for its continued success. As mentioned above, it is the impacts of our democracy that are destroying the Earth global life-support systems, and we all have to help here.
Global Community has put forward a blueprint of the specific policies and actions governments need to take right now.
Earth is finite and, therefore, population growth, overconsumption, and economic activity must reach a limit in the very near future. Earth cannot and will not support continued population overconsumption, and economic growth. Humanity requires continual and never ending economic and population growth, in direct conflict with nature's finite resources.
Global Community has outlined a bold vision of how and why these reforms should be based firmly on the principle of sharing. Sharing the world natural resources equitably and sustainably is arguably the most pragmatic way of simultaneously addressing both the ecological and social crises we face. Let us first make a short list of the most important commons we need to take care of for life survival.
Essentially, a Global Commons Trust would embody the principle of sharing on a global scale, and it would enable the Global Community to take collective responsibility for managing the world natural resources. And there are well defined commons which were classified as most important than others for all life survival on our planet.
We need to create a Global Ministry for the economic sharing, production and distribution of resources. We need global ministries for the most important commons.
Global Ministries are the new Global Commons :
- Global Ministry of Essential Services
- Ministry of Global Resources
- Ministry of Global Peace in government
- Earth Environmental Governance
- Earth Ministry of Health
- Global Ministry of Forests
- Global Ministry of Agriculture, Food Production and Distribution
- Global Civilization Ministry of Peace and Disarmament
- Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs: Global Government of Africa
- Global Ministry of Water Resources Protection
- Global Environment Ministry
The commons are the cultural and natural resources accessible to everyone for the benefits of all. These resources are held in common and not to be owned privately. The most important commons for all life on our planet are certainly the global life-support systems without which noone could survive on our planet.
The global life-support systems are the Commons with the highest priorities.
There are many related aspects of the global life-support systems:
- climate change
- global warming
- Oxygen supplies
- Ozone depletion
- wastes of all kind including nuclear and release of radiation; chemical pollution
- primordial global rights deterioration
- species of the fauna and flora becoming extinct
- losses of forest cover and of biological diversity
- the capacity for photosynthesis
- the water cycle and fresh water use
- phosphorus and nitrogen cycles
- food production systems
- genetic resources
- change in land use and lost of agricultural soils
- global ocean acidification
The Scale of Global Rights prioritizes the Commons to save all life on Earth.
The Scale of Global Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on. Concerning Sections 1, 2, and 3, it shall be Global Community highest priority to guarantee these rights to Member Nations and to have proper legislation and implement and enforce Global Law. Concerning Sections 4, 5, and 6, it shall be the aim of Global Community to secure these other rights for all global citizens but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rights are defined as Directive Principles, obligating Global Community to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the Scale of Global Rights defines the Commons with the highest priorities.
Section 1. Ecological rights, and the protection of the global life-support systems
Section 2. Primordial human rights:
- safety and security
- have shelter
- ‘clean’ energy
- a ‘clean’ and healthy environment
- drink fresh water
- breath clean air
- eat a balance diet
- basic clothing
- universal health care and education
- employment for all
Section 3. global rights of future generations to have their life-support systems protected and primordial human rights taken care of today.
As shown in the above global life-support systems listing and also in the Scale of Global Rights, the most important commons that has been successful for billions of years is the biosphere. Nature has been and is still today the most important commons and society needs to build an economy of the commons that makes democracy based on the fact that land, air, water, oil & gas, minerals, space, the electromagnetic spectrum, and all other natural resources rightly belong to Global Community as a birthright, and they are for sharing as per the Scale of Global Rights.
With natural resources held in trust for all, it would be much easier to establish a global sharing economy, which is to equalise global consumption levels so that world population can flourish within ecological limits. To achieve this, over-consuming countries need to significantly reduce their natural resource use, while developing countries must be able to increase theirs until a convergence in global per capita consumption levels is eventually reached.
While many people understand that population growth must cease if humanity is to survive, no action has been taken on a world-wide basis which will insure that population growth is reduced to a minimum. Earth cannot and will not wait even twenty years before the horrible destruction of humanity commences. Global Community is declaring a moratorium on world population, the fertility rate and immigration applications all over the world, on all applications for immigration, until applicants from any religious or cultural background have satisfied completely Global Community standard for a population fertility rate of 1.3 children per family. The problem with world overpopulation is everybody’s problem. Until tangible progress is made no immigrants should be accepted. That is Global Law.
Overpopulation is a form of population warfare. It is the use of a very high fertility rate to conquer a nation, and that could mean as many as or more than 2.1 children per family. It is a form of cultural and/or religious aggression and invasion by having a much too high number of new born babies. For instance, there has been a rapid increase in population among Muslims to the extent that in 20 years all of Europe and North America are expected to be mostly Islamic. The influx of Latino immigration into the western states of the USA will also have the effect of a population warfare.
Now, obviously what immigration does is to infringe into the most important rights on the Scale of Global Rights: Sections 1, 2, and 3. It amounts at creating and stressing the world overpopulation problem which is way far more destructive than conducting military warfare. Global Community condemns all types of warfare we see in the world today: military, economic and population. Surely the rights to protect the existence of all life on our planet are more important than cultural and religious rights. Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the Scale of Global Rights are certainly more important than Section 6.
No one can feed, educate, and take care of a family with a large number of children. Simply said: if you cannot feed a human family of too many members, dont do it. Think of the world population today and in the coming decades, as a family with already far too many members. We all know world population on our planet as over reach its safe and secure capacity. Our human family is breaking down, suffering, crying, hungry, dying, tortured, and in great danger of extinction. Our human family is out of control, abused, taken advantage of by the 1% of its members, and by promoting democracy and human rights destructively.
To reduce consumption levels in industrialised nations, natural resource management would need to be at the forefront of policymaking, and economic growth based on unlimited consumption can no longer be the goal of government policy. Much would also need to be done to let go the culture of consumerism; and private and public investments must be shifted to building and sustaining a low-carbon infrastructure.
After having established a Global Commons Trust, reduced world population and global consumption, natural resources would be accessible to people in all nations, all global communities, consumed within planetary limits and preserved for future generations.
Artic
The astonishing beauty of the Artic is itself a natural resource. Natural resources must be protected. Glaciers are made of the purest drinking waters on Earth. There is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. Everyone of those communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth which is why Global Community has created a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources. The Global Commons Trust would certainly be appropriate in protecting life in all its forms in the Artic and everywhere else in the world.
The important issue of climate change is causing conflicts over the Artic region to become a global problem requiring all Peoples on Earth to participate in the debate, and to come up with an action plan to save all life on Earth. The risks deriving from the warming-up of the earth can very well be illustrated with data on the situation in the Arctic. If the whole ice sheet covering Greenland today were to melt, this would result in a 7 meter rise in sea levels worldwide. Greenland glaciers for instance have accelerated the speed at which they flow towards the sea along the country's coast. The Arctic ice sheet has lost a reported 15 percent of its surface over the last thirty years, and 40 percent of its thickness. Both indigenous hunters and other lifeforms which depend on the ice sheet for their habitat suffer in consequence. Considered to be the symbol of the Arctic, the ice bear is threatened with extinction in the short term.
Another way Arctic warming could have worldwide consequences is through its influence on permafrost. Permanently frozen soils worldwide contain 1400-1700 Gigatons of carbon, about four times more than all the carbon emitted by human activity in modern times. A 2008 study found that a period of abrupt sea-ice loss could lead to rapid soil thaw that would result to an annual carbon emissions which could amount to 15-35 percent of today’s yearly emissions from human activities.
An even more critical source of greenhouse gases is the methane in the seabed of the Arctic Ocean. These so-called clathrates contain an estimated 1400 Gigatons of methane, a more potent though shorter-lived greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Methane clathrate, a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure, remains stable under a combination of high pressure and low temperature. At a depth of 50 meters or less the East Siberian Arctic Shelf contains the shallowest methane clathrate deposits, and is thus most vulnerable to rising water temperatures. Current methane concentrations in the Arctic already average about 1.90 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years.
Beside the global warming of the planet, there is another factor that contributes to warming of the waters in the Arctic, and it is the increase in discharge rates from melting glaciers. This runoff is much warmer than the Arctic Ocean water. The net result is a slight warming of the Arctic Ocean waters and a dilution of salinity.
Global climate change is rapidly advancing, melting glaciers, eroding soil, causing freak and increasingly wild storms, and displacing untold millions from rural communities to live in desperate poverty in urban slums. Almost every human victim lives in the global South, in communities not responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. The atmosphere has already warmed up almost a full degree in the last several decades and a new Canadian study reports that we may be on course to add another 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.
Unlimited growth in society assumes unlimited natural resources, and this is the reason of the crisis. In order to feed the increasing demands of our consumer based system, society has seen Nature as a great resource for our personal convenience and profit, not as a living ecosystem from which all life came from. So we have built our economic and development policies assuming either that Nature would never fail to provide or that, where it does fail, technology will save the day.
What happens in the Artic will also affect us all in frightening ways. The rapid disintegration and melting of Arctic icebergs, glaciers, and sea ice is projected to raise global sea levels, threatening coastal cities across the world. And the melting of the Arctic permafrost and of frozen areas of the seafloor is likely to release huge amounts of methane (about 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) that will be catastrophic for the planet.
In the current economic crisis almost every country and probably all the industrialized countries have taken steps to stimulate their economies without making a determination as to what level of economic activity is best for the long term survival of humankind.
Accountable government is what humanity needs. Global Community deserves nothing less. Global Parliament is what we offer. Let us build a Global Commons Trust.
Every aspect of humanity society will have to be evaluated and most likely changed. Every aspect of morality, charity, government, religion, politics, philosophy, etc. will have to be evaluated and revised in almost an instant of time. That is the problem facing humanity.
To achieve a balance of freedom and order, local communities must be given a larger responsibility for peace and care for Earth. Let towns and cities link with each other locally and across national boundaries in creating programs and in solving social and environmental problems. This will help foster the trust needed by nations to achieve lasting peace for all peoples.
When a group of ordinary people realized they, personally, will make the changes they need in their fields, in their village. They can then find ways to bring these changes for all.
