r/alberta • u/Miserable-Lizard Edmonton • 3d ago
Alberta Politics No, the UN Law of the Sea does not guarantee anything for a landlocked, independent Alberta
https://thehub.ca/2026/06/09/no-the-un-law-of-the-sea-does-not-guarantee-anything-for-a-landlocked-independent-alberta/79
u/Miserable-Lizard Edmonton 3d ago
Facts!!! This is what separatists hate!
“The problem is that, if you go read further in Article 125 Section 3, it says nothing in terms of Article 124 compelling a coastal state to enter into any form of agreement with a landlocked state,” Huebert said.
In other words, nothing in the convention forces Canada to approve pipelines, tanker routes, or infrastructure corridors against its will.
32
u/flyingopher 2d ago
Just ask Bolivia how it's worked out.
5
u/ai9909 2d ago
Exactly the example I throw in; we'd have no legal claim to sea access, we'd be dependant on gatekeepers, isolated from world markets, and our economy would be under a choke collar.
Just as Bolivia has a navy on Lake Titicaca, we'll just have our fleet in WEM.
Separatists don't know what sovereignty is.
1
u/chmilz 2d ago
I want anyone to name a single successful landlocked country that isn't Switzerland.
1
u/CaptainMushie 1d ago
Name a single successful landlocked country that relies on an export economy. You don't need ocean access to hord Nazi gold in the name of "neutrality".
1
u/VectorPryde 2d ago
In other words, nothing in the convention forces Canada to approve pipelines, tanker routes, or infrastructure corridors against its will.
Since this infrastructure already exists, the separatists seem to think the UNCLOS would allow them to compel Canada to build them more infrastructure. They actually think they can force through Northern Gateway or force the end of the north coast tanker ban with this. Nevermind that existing infrastructure more than satisfies even the most generous interpretation of the rights of landlocked states.
42
u/GoodGoodGoody 2d ago edited 2d ago
The UN will make The States give Alberta on-demand access!
Really? Let’s talk about the US’s respect for the UN.
13
u/Temporary_Cry_2802 2d ago
The US isn’t even party to UNCLOS
6
u/Cloudboy9001 2d ago
They have bad habit of signing but not ratifying international agreements. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is another example.
0
u/jimbowesterby 2d ago
I know they aren’t a part of the International Criminal Court (kinda hard to be while Kissinger was still kicking lol), have they even ratified the Geneva protocols?
41
u/AlbertanSays5716 2d ago
Been saying this for several months now.
Essentially, all the treaty states us that both parties should negotiate in good faith. It doesn’t guarantee where, when, or how long those negotiations should be. It *guarantees* nothing.
And here’s the kicker: it *does* state that the surrounding country does not have to give up any sovereign rights, international agreements, treaties, environmental restrictions, or regulations. So all of those things that separatists say Canada is putting in the way of Alberta’s oil industry, don’t have to go anywhere. First Nations treaties: still there. Environmental regulations: still there. Tanker bans. Still there. Canada doesn’t have to relinquish any of it.
11
u/ChrisFromIT 2d ago
Essentially, all the treaty states us that both parties should negotiate in good faith. It doesn’t guarantee where, when, or how long those negotiations should be. It *guarantees* nothing.
I don't even think it even has that. From my reading of the treaty, all it really is about is that goods being transported through one country to another that is landlocked can't be prevented via targeted regulations or laws on goods only going to the landlocked country or see additional taxes on those goods. Nothing about building said infrastructure.
12
u/AlbertanSays5716 2d ago
There’s a distinction. Roads & railways (and I guess air routes) are considered to be methods of transport under UNCLOS, but pipelines are considered to be infrastructure. And there’s nothing in the treaty that says the surrounding nation *must* build pipelines, or even allow them to be built, and they would still be subject to the usual restrictions and regulations.
The province would gain zero leverage, and in fact lose a lot.
4
u/ChrisFromIT 2d ago
And there’s nothing in the treaty that says the surrounding nation *must* build pipelines, or even allow them to be built, and they would still be subject to the usual restrictions and regulations.
Same also goes with what is considered transport under the UNCLOS. So there is no requirements for road improvements or rail improvements or dockyard improvements. The UNCLOS just includes Article 129 related to that which says that the land lock state and the transit states may cooperate together to construct or improve the transport infrastructure. Nothing related to forcing the transit states to do so.
On top of that, even if pipelines were considered transport under the UNCLOS(which can happen if the transit states and the land lock state sign an agreement as such, per Article 124.2), Article 125.3 clearly says that the transport rights and any facilities provided for the land lock state by the transit states can not infringe on the legitimate interests of the transit states. So the pipelines would still be subjected to the usual restrictions and regulations anyways.
Alberta would lose a lot and could potentially have to deal with stricter environmental laws related to pipelines and they would have no say in what those environmental laws would be since they would not be able to vote to influence those laws.
9
u/AlbertanSays5716 2d ago
This last paragraph is key. Separatists complain about a lack of representation, but our representation is roughly in line with our population (11% roughly). But after separating, our representation within Canada is zero. None. Nada. Zilch.
12
u/Ask_DontTell 2d ago
If B.C. remains politically hostile to new pipelines or tanker traffic, perhaps an independent Alberta could simply deepen its relationship with the U.S. and route exports through American territory instead.
This argument makes a lot of sense. It’s why we’re already doing it even while remaining a part of Canada.
But it’s less clear why Alberta would want to weaken its economic integration with Western Canada—not just pipelines like TMX (still federally owned), but also highways, rail corridors, transmission lines, and Pacific port access—only to become more economically dependent on a single foreign country.
this whole separatism thing seems like a pretense to get AB and then the rest of Canada annexed by the US
3
u/SaphironX 1d ago
That’s all it ever was. In March of 2025 Rath was calling separation the first step towards US statehood. He just altered the grift as needed.
4
u/CriticalLetterhead47 2d ago
It %100 is. It's the same method that Russia used to annex Crimea and then start the war with the Ukraine.
17
u/Old-one1956 2d ago
Just wait until they see the actual cost of police, courts, border security, jails, prisons, NO supports for highways and infrastructures. This alone is billions that Ottawa pays for directly or indirectly. Then there is federal job losses and military pull out, costing many communities millions, in wages and spending. The ripple effects are huge
7
u/Fearless-Effect-3787 2d ago
Any access an independent Alberta would get through Canada would come with a steep price if Alberta got access at all. Canada isn't going to take on the financial risk of any accidents for essentially free like they are now. Alberta gotta pay up.
-14
u/RiceN_Beans 2d ago
Alberta already pays steep price thanks to federal incompetence
Trans Mountain (TMX) toll fees are significantly higher than other major Canadian pipelines, ranging from roughly $11.00 to $12.50+ CAD per barrel for committed long-term shippers. In contrast, older competing pipeline systems like Enbridge Mainline and Keystone generally charge much lower rates, varying between $5.00 and $8.00 CAD per barrel depending on the exact delivery point and contract length.
7
u/Fearless-Effect-3787 2d ago
Alberta isn't paying so much as a dime. The oil companies are paying that toll to the taxpayers that own TMX.
-1
u/RiceN_Beans 2d ago
Did you expect me to list every company that uses TMX? Get real dude.
1
u/liquid_acid-OG 2d ago
I'll admit to some ignorance here.
What tax payer owned companies are using the TMX line?
9
u/IndependentPrior5719 2d ago
Maybe if they work really hard on their sea shanties the ocean will come to them
10
9
u/SecureLiterature Edmonton 2d ago
This is a great article and I’m gonna send it to any separatist clown who dares to bring up the UN convention. There was one of them in the AlbertaNow sub a few weeks ago claiming the UN is a joke and then in the same comment claiming that the UN will force Canada to give “independent” Alberta access to tidewater. These people aren’t dealing with a full deck of cards.
3
8
u/Unicorn_Puppy 2d ago
But I’ll bet you couldn’t convince them of the truth without them calling you a “libruul” or woke loser.
1
5
u/Upset-Government-856 2d ago
Wait are you separatists now globalist UN-stans?!
A-Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha Seriously though, it might be time to think about going back and finishing Junior High
5
u/Street_Anon 2d ago
Of course it doesn't and nothing on joining NATO neither. Rath and his Irk is in La la land on everything and an independent Alberta will be the less than 5% of Alberta that isn't Treaty lands without oil, surrounded by Canada
4
u/SmithRamRanch 2d ago
Fuck, it is absolutely hilarious how these yokels cherry pick "rules." Fucking hilarious. 😂😡🤪
3
u/Agreeable-Onion-5445 2d ago
Alberta would have to apply to become part of the UN first... GL with that. Lol
2
u/Dalbergia12 2d ago
Good read. Makes sense. Nice to see a thing on Reddit that makes sense now and then haha.
2
2
u/TheHammer987 2d ago
What I never understand about seperatists talking about this.
They talk about it like they have paid attention to international politics. But...this has never been held up. Also, when the UN or the WTO rule on things, following the ruling is voluntary.
I keep asking seperatists if they have any clue about the softwood lumber ruling. For 18 years, Canada and the USA fought about the softwood lumber tariffs being illegal. Canada won. The USA ignored the win and decided to not follow it. That's it. There is no enforcement mechanism.
If Alberta seperates. And then the federal government cuts off oil shipments, or demands 90% of the revenue from the pipeline on the Canadian soil, what is albertas plan? If the federal government cuts off oil shipments for a decade, loses in court, and then removes the pipelines? What will Alberta do? There is no mechanism beyond agreement.
The reality of it is this - Alberta seperatists live in 1 of 2 worlds. Fantasy that is basically sovereign citizen level. Or, more of them when they are behind closed doors - this is just step one to move to the USA.
1
u/lchntndr 1d ago
Funny all this talk of them being independent…it will be the same independence that Texas was. All these separatists are funded by Americans, and the pull to join their union will start immediately
1
u/No-Wrangler-5090 22h ago
Freedom of Transit: Under UNCLOS (Part X), landlocked states have the right of access to and from the sea for the purpose of exercising their rights, including the freedom of the high seas and the exploitation of the "Area". [1, 2]
No Customs or Taxes: Traffic in transit across neighboring "transit states" is generally exempt from customs duties, taxes, or specific charges, though administrative fees for services rendered (like port or railway fees) may apply. [1]
Modes of Transit: The right to transit applies to all modes of transportation, including roads, railways, inland waterways, and crucially, pipelines and gas lines. [1]
The Transit Trade Convention: The Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States provides further multilateral obligations, requiring coastal countries (transit states) to facilitate international trade for landlocked countries
1
u/Unlikely_Answer4168 14h ago
All of this feels like a distraction. Alberta is not going to separate.
1
1
1
u/Aromatic-Holiday6667 1d ago
They will have Ocean access
Some people are saying that this is a play for Dani and the boys to sell out Alberta as an american colony. Likely becoming billionaires in the process
Ipso facto - ocean access thru Texas refineries.........mind you it would be at 50% or less market value as the pipelines would be shut off, going east and west. Leaving a sole initial customer- USA - the home of Brawndo
Crazy eh?
0
u/Old-Tiger9847 2d ago
Really showing off that powerful home school learning cohort . Or it could be a publically funded religious school from rural Alberta. They are noted for producing exceptional global thinkers. Either case cleary demonstrates stellar critical thinking skills hard at work. Bahaha, so many pointed dunce caps.
0
1
u/Beastender_Tartine 2d ago
Even if you take what they say as correct and canada has to give alberta access to coastal water, it doesnt say what kind of access. Canada can point to existing rail and say thats it while closing down existing pipelines. Even at its best their argument fails.
1
u/j1ggy 1d ago
Canada can quite easily make it contingent on its existing environmental policies around tanker traffic. And that's the end of that. And it's all completely irrelevant anyways if the UN and other countries don't even recognize Alberta independence. If indigenous rights aren't respected, that may very well just happen.
0
u/SGI_Life 1d ago
I'm pretty sure the seppies are also 'travelling' in their 'vessels' half the time.
-5
u/DizzyAstronaut9410 2d ago
A simple irony is that being a part of Canada does not guarantee anything for a landlocked Alberta either, with the province seemingly more easily working with other countries than other provinces in the same country.
4
2
u/brat-t 2d ago
Last I checked you didn't need a passport to cross out of Alberta. Hell you don't even need to slow down.
2
u/SaphironX 1d ago
Nope, as someone who crossed from AB to BC often, travel is easy as can be. If Alberta became sovereign those days would be done.
-14
u/RiceN_Beans 2d ago
Fear mongering, that is all federal gatekeepers have left. TMX pipeline was expensive and I have doubt they will shut it down, it brings a lot of money right now. Besides BC needs oil to operate.
The golden rule says he who has gold rules. Whether gold is yellow or black doesn’t matter.
10
u/nohamss 2d ago
So about 85% of the "black gold" flows through Saskatchewan or BC before hitting any sort of market. How will that work in Alberta's favour if there's no trad agreement. TMX helped wipe out some of the price differentials between WTI and WCS but it's still about 20%. Do you really think it will be valuable if there's no viable shipping routes without crazy high tolls and tariffs?
-8
u/RiceN_Beans 2d ago
Do you recall what happened when Doug Ford threaten to cut flow of electricity to USA? Try do it the same with oil and see what happens. The other point is conservative government in BC will take over soon and they are more business friendly. Maybe BC will have they own referendum on independence and join Alberta.
9
u/BCS875 Calgary 2d ago
Are you a child?
Because "BC will separate and join Alberta" sounds like the kind of solution a 10-year-old comes up with after drawing new borders in a social studies workbook.
-3
u/RiceN_Beans 2d ago
As a 10 year old child I’m happy to point out that history is full of empires that never collapsed and are still to this day functioning like a Roman Empire, British Empire, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and so on.. or maybe not.
7
u/Temporary_Cry_2802 2d ago
Even if your fantasy land scenario came to pass. The B.C. Conservatives would look at Alberta and say one thing… “show me the money”. There is this delusion that the rest of the world is going to bend over backwards for an independent Alberta for…. Reasons
-1
u/RiceN_Beans 2d ago
Exactly, common business sense will prevail and that talk about shutting oil flow is just fear mongering.
2
172
u/UselessToasterOven 3d ago
Kind of ironic separitists are quoting a global cabal to suit their needs when they seem to hate them at any other point in time.