Premier Partners: Canada, the United States, and Arctic Security

  • Rob Huebert
  • P. Whitney Lackenbauer
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series (STANTS)


Canada and the United States have always had a complicated relationship regarding the Arctic. Popular and public rhetoric often suggests that the region represents a major source of tension between the two close allies.1 This reflects Canada’s persistent preoccupation with Arctic sovereignty, with the United States cast as a perennial threat since the days of the Alaska Boundary Dispute, as well as the United States’ preoccupation with continental security since World War II. In practice, Canada and the United States have long collaborated in the Arctic through bilateral defense and security agreements, as well as in science and technology, environmental protection, infrastructure development, and surveillance. Canadian hypernationalism and the global scope of US geopolitical interests often obscure this enduring partnership.


Foreign Policy National Security Arctic Region Arctic State Security Interest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    See F. Griffiths, R. Huebert, and P. W. Lackenbauer (2011) Canada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Security and Stewardship (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press).Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    US Navy (2014) The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030 (Washington: Chief of Naval Operations), p. 6.Google Scholar
  3. 8.
    See J. Jockel (1987) No Boundaries Upstairs: Canada, the United States, and the Origins of North American Air Defense, 1945–1958 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press);Google Scholar
  4. R. Purver (1995) ‘The Arctic in Canadian Security Policy, 1945 to the Present’, in D. Hewitt and D. Leyton-Brown, eds, Canada’s International Security Policy (Scarborough: Prentice Hall), pp. 81–110.Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    S. Grant (1988) Sovereignty or Security? Government Policy in the Canadian North, 1936–1950 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press).Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    P. W. Lackenbauer and P. Kikkert (2011) ‘Sovereignty and Security: The Department of External Affairs, the United States, and Arctic Sovereignty, 1945–68’, in G. Donaghy and M. Carroll, eds, In the National Interest: Canadian Foreign Policy and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1909–2009 (Calgary: University of Calgary Press), pp. 101–20.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    R. Huebert (2001) ‘A Northern Foreign Policy: The Politics of Ad Hocery’, in N. Michaud and K. R. Nossal, eds, Diplomatic Departures: The Conservative Era in Canadian Foreign Policy, 1984–93 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press), pp. 84–112.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    See also P. W. Lackenbauer and P. Kikkert (2010) The Canadian Forces and Arctic Sovereignty: Debating Roles, Interests, and Requirements, 1968–1974 (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press).Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    D. Morton (2000) ‘Providing and Consuming Security in Canada’s Century’, Canadian Historical Review, 81:1, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 14.
    Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1991) The Arctic Environmental Strategy: An Action Plan (Ottawa: DIAND).Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    R. Huebert (1999) ‘Canadian Arctic Security Issues: Transformation in the Post-Cold War Era’, International Journal, 54:2, 203–29;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. K. Coates, P. W. Lackenbauer, W. Morrison, and G. Poelzer (2008) Arctic Front: Defending Canada in the Far North (Toronto: Thomas Allen).Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    O. R. Young (1998) Creating Regimes: Arctic Accords and International Governance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press);Google Scholar
  14. J. English (2013) Ice and Water: Politics, Peoples, and the Arctic Council (Toronto: Allen Lane).Google Scholar
  15. 21.
    Department of National Defense (2000) Arctic Capabilities Study, 1948–3-CC4C (DGSP), (Ottawa: Director General Strategic Planning);Google Scholar
  16. P. W. Lackenbauer (2009) From Polar Race to Polar Saga: An Integrated Strategy for Canada and the Circumpolar World (Toronto: Canadian International Council).Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    Government of Canada (2005) Canada’s International Policy Statement: A Role of Pride and Influence in the World (Overview) (Ottawa: Foreign Affairs Canada), p. 3.Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    Government of Canada (2009) Canada’s Northern Strategy: Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future (Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs), Scholar
  19. 47.
    E. W. Rowe (2012) ‘A Dangerous Space? Unpacking State and Media Discourses on the Arctic’, Polar Geography, 36:3, 232–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 53.
    M. Byers and S. Lalonde (2009) ‘Who Controls the Northwest Passage?’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42, pp. 1133–210.Google Scholar
  21. 54.
    For example J. Kraska. ‘International Security and International Law in the Northwest Passage’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42 (2009), 1109–32.Google Scholar
  22. 59.
    J. Ferris and J. Keeley (2006) ‘Canada and Continental Security: Policies, Threats and Architecture’, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 9:2, 1–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rob Huebert and P. Whitney Lackenbauer 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Huebert
  • P. Whitney Lackenbauer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations