Ridding the Arctic of nuclear weapons

The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low – for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.” 62 A Proposal to Neutralize Nuclear Threats in the Arctic: Establishing an Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Z [...] However, as we argue below, neither the presence of nuclear-capable submarines under Arctic waters nor the presence of nuclear weapons possessed by a nuclear weapon state need necessarily prevent the creation of a NWFZ in the Arctic littoral.67 A third major obstacle is the position of the United States. [...] The most important of these are the following: 1. The content of a NWFZ Treaty should in no way disturb existing security arrangements or interfere with the rights of individual or collective self-defence guaranteed to states under Article 51 of the U. N. Charter; 10 Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue 2. A. zone should not affect the rights of the parties under internationa [...] The Canadian claim of the long-standing, albeit low-key, dispute between Canada and the United States over the status of the Northwest Passage. [...] These are de-nuclearization the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco covering Latin America; the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga covering much of the South Pacific; the 1992 Declaration on the agreements in Denuclearization of Korea, and the 1995 Treaty of Bangkok, covering much of Southeast Asia.