idiggory wrote:
Canada has a pretty good case, though. I think using the UN accepted definition of International Waters, few (if any) parts of the passage fall within it.
Here's a map I found from
this site.
The arctic circle has been disputed for years, but this passage specifically seems pretty firmly within Canadian jurisdiction.
From that map it looks like theoretically legally speaking shipping would have to go all the way up that triangular corner of Canada to where it meets Greenland, and come down between Canada and Greenland. Which would be a lot less efficient than shipping would like. And I don't know if that area up to the tippy top corner of Canada and Greenland would be icefree anyway.
But legalities can get a bit academic if they are unenforcable, and legalities are often unenforceable around the poles. For example Australia claims huge areas of the Antarctic which most nations don't acknowledge. Lots of nations have teeny tiny "soveriegn" research stations all over the Antarctic, with pretty much no regard to who, of several national claimants, owns the land. And since physical human life is so often at risk down there, there is usually in practise massive co-operation between people of the different research stations, regardless of how their parent nations are getting along in the rest of the world.
In other examples, whaling and fishing nations often flout "no-take" conservation zones in the waters of other nations. If the patrol planes/patrol boats don't see you - no foul. Even if they do see you - often nothing practically can be done about it. Diplomats complain strenuously, but the sort of actions that could be taken to arresting an entire ship come perilously close to aggressive war-like actions.