Norwegian Sovereignty Research Articles

Rethinking the exercise of sovereignty in the Anthropocene: From extraction to environmental protection in Arctic Svalbard

This paper explores the implications of the Anthropocene and its associated planetary awareness on the concept and exercise of sovereignty, particularly through the lens of the Svalbard Treaty. The Arctic archipelago of Svalbard is not only a space undergoing rapid environmental change today, but its treaty-based governance arrangements are based on an early-twentieth century spatial imaginary of fishery, coal, and resource extraction. By examining Norway's governance shift from resource extraction to environmental stewardship on Svalbard, this paper reflects on transformations of the practice of sovereignty in response to global environmental challenges. Through interviews with local stakeholders, the research highlights the contentious nature of these shifts, revealing how increased environmental regulations, while necessary, may paradoxically entrench existing power structures and complicate the presence of non-Norwegian entities. This case study of the Svalbard Treaty serves as a normative microcosm for broader issues of sovereignty, treaty obligations, and international governance as they may evolve due to planetary change, pointing to the urgent need to rethink these evolving dynamics. The paper underscores the pressing and complex challenges facing the international system in the Anthropocene, suggesting that while Svalbard's geopolitical stability may be maintained and Norwegian sovereignty remains uncontested, the instability of global environmental realities is already leading to changes to the ways in which sovereignty is exercised in the present.

Norway’s research policy for Svalbard: intentions and perceptions

ABSTRACT Scholars of critical geography and geopolitics have long noted the intersection between research and strategic interest in the polar areas. This article focuses on how this link is displayed in the case of Svalbard, an Arctic archipelago under Norwegian sovereignty. While Norway’ research policy in Svalbard has traditionally been welcoming and supportive of international research activity with little interference in the organization of research, the Norwegian government recently introduced a new policy for the research community Ny-Ålesund. The article reviews the changes introduced as well as the response from involved research organizations. It shows interdependence between political ambitions and research priorities and, given the status of Svalbard, a more complex relationship than is the case for research in polar areas outside national jurisdiction.

Renewable energy expansion or the preservation of national energy sovereignty? Norwegian renewable energy policy meets resource nationalism

Proponents of renewable energy often argue that renewables bolster national energy sovereignty. Most of the scholarship however focuses on security of supply, imports and enhanced domestic production, not on exports. How does exporting renewable energy resources affect sovereignty? Here, we turn our attention to Norway, a country that is already self-sufficient in renewables, and where renewable energy expansion is primarily directed at exports. Drawing on resource nationalist scholarship we empirically scrutinize key Norwegian renewable energy debates and show how the Norwegian renewable energy debates do not include notions of renewables bolstering sovereignty. On the contrary, they vary between portraying the relationship between renewables and sovereignty as a non-relationship, where renewables are immaterial to sovereignty, or an adverse relationship, where renewable expansion is perceived to weaken, rather than strengthen, sovereignty. The fear of being locked into an asymmetric dependency relationship with an EU that gradually wrests away Norwegian sovereignty over natural resources triggers resource nationalist imaginaries and is a powerful brake on renewable energy expansion. Resource nationalism is also fueled by claims of green grabbing and attacks on local self-determination. Our findings signal that renewable expansion may trigger political and popular backlashes, and that resource nationalist claims about abstained sovereignty may constitute considerable obstacles to renewable energy transitions.

Global governance in Arctic waters – new times. new stressors. catching up with pharmaceuticals

ABSTRACT Arctic ecosystems are increasingly under pressure, not only from climatic stressors, resource extraction, and long-range transport of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), but also from an increased use and subsequent release of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP). In Svalbard, an archipelago under Norwegian sovereignty in the High North, urbanisation and expanded tourism has exacerbated the issue of PPCPs accumulation in the region. The primary source of its release into aquatic ecosystems stems from untreated sewage and lack of Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs). This study applies the research surrounding sources of hazardous bioaccumulation and examines mitigation alternatives for PPCPs within a governance framework since today, few regulations regarding human waste disposal are enforced in the Arctic. We held in-depth interviews and a participatory stakeholder workshop in Longyearbyen and Ny-Ålesund in 2021 to learn from experts about their perceptions of challenges, opportunities and synergies in terms of PPCP governance in Svalbard. This study found that overall, governance is servery lacking at all levels of analysis, from local to global, to prevent the harmful release of PPCPs in the waters and environment surrounding Svalbard. An inclusive approach with co-production of policy options is necessary to find a suite of solutions that will ensure that this new emerging environmental threat is handled so that Arctic biodiversity is protected against it.

Arctic Asylum

Abstract This article examines the regulation and rights of refugees and other foreigners in independent, overseas and other not fully sovereign territories. It analyses two Nordic cases, Greenland and Svalbard. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Svalbard an unincorporated area subject to Norwegian sovereignty through the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty. Unlike their parent states, both territories remain outside the Schengen Area. As this article highlights, both territories are subject to distinct regulatory frameworks in respect to asylum-seekers and refugees. While the number of asylum-seekers or refugees in each place is so far very limited, the regulatory differences nonetheless raise principled questions both from a rights-based perspective and at the more theoretical level. As this article argues, Greenland and Svalbard both exemplify how international law and late sovereign constructions may themselves provide for an unmooring of asylum and refugee rights within the ordinary statist framework. The effects in each case are multi-directional. On the one hand, the legal frameworks pertaining to these arctic territories provide for significantly more liberal rules in terms of access to asylum and immigration control. On the other hand, these legal bifurcations serve to upend the ordinary Nordic social contract and welfare rights owed to refugees and other aliens.

The Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty

A hundred years ago on 9 February 2020, the Svalbard Treaty was adopted in Paris, granting Norway her long-standing ambition: full and absolute sovereignty over the Svalbard archipelago. After a brief review of the negotiations that preceded the Paris decision, this article examines the main elements of the Treaty: Norwegian sovereignty, the principle of non-discrimination and the terra nullius rights of other states, peaceful utilization, scientific research and environmental protection. Focus then shifts to Norway’s policy towards Svalbard and the implementation of the Treaty’s provisions: what have been the main lines of Norwegian Svalbard politics; what administrative structures have evolved; to what extent has Norwegian legislation been made applicable to Svalbard? Importantly, the article also addresses how widespread changes in international law that have taken place since 1920, particularly developments concerning the law of the sea, have brought to the forefront controversial issues concerning the geographic scope of the Treaty’s application.

Alien plants, animals, fungi and algae in Norway: an inventory of neobiota

We present the results of an inventory and status assessment of alien species in Norway. The inventory covered all known multicellular neobiota, 2496 in total, 1039 of which were classified as naturalised. The latter constitute c. 3% of all species known to be stably reproducing in Norway. These figures are higher than expected from Norway’s latitude, which may be due a combination of climatic and historical factors, as well as sampling effort. Most of the naturalised neobiota were plants (71%), followed by animals (21%) and fungi (8%). The main habitat types colonised were open lowlands (79%), urban environments (52%) and woodlands (42%). The main areas of origin were Europe (67%), North America (15%) and Asia (13%). For most taxa, the rate of novel introductions seems to have been increasing during recent decades. Within Norway, the number of alien species recorded per county was negatively correlated with latitude and positively correlated with human population density. In the high-Arctic territories under Norwegian sovereignty, i.e. Svalbard and Jan Mayen, 104 alien species were recorded, of which 5 were naturalised.

Soviet-Norwegian Contacts on Svalbard During the Cold War

In 1920 Spitsbergen was given under Norwegian sovereignty after the Paris agreement. According to this agreement all its member states had freedom of economic, scientific and other non-military activities here. Since 1931, the “Arktikugol” Trust has been producing coal on Svalbard. Large settlements with a permanent population — Norwegian and Soviet were founded. There was a unique situation: next to each other were large groups of the population of the two countries, representing various socio-economic and political systems, and, in addition, included in the opposing military blocs — NATO and Warsaw Pact. In the conditions of the Arctic archipelago, where for a long time of the year communication with the mainland was maintained only by radio, contacts between Soviet miners and Norwegians were inevitable. During the Cold War these contacts did not stop despite the tense relations between the USSR and Norway. The traditions of peaceful coexistence and good neighborliness that prevailed on Svalbard in the pre-war years continued despite Norway joining NATO and a number of political crises in Europe. Such situation generally preserved up to the collapse of the USSR. The paper shortly describes the contacts between Soviet and Norwegian representatives on Spitsbergen on the official and domestic levels during the Cold war. The paper is based on archive documents and materials of the “Arcticugol” department media.

The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?

The Svalbard Treaty and its claimed ‘extended-reach’ jurisdiction incorporating both the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – ie a fisheries protection zone (FPZ) – is an international law puzzle. Disputes regarding the Treaty’s jurisdictione ratione terrae results from interpretative differences. My findings are as follows: the Treaty’s concept of ‘full and absolute sovereignty’ refers to the one-time jurisdiction transfer that occurred in April 1925. The notion of ‘territorial waters’ attracts both an historic (static) and evolutionary (dynamic) reading. Regarding its material content, we are faced with the first category. Considering geographic reach, evolutionary reading takes over. ‘Territorial water’ jurisdictione ratione terrae is a generic form whose reach, which is at most 12 nautical miles, is dynamic. The treaty does not prevent Norway from unilaterally deciding whether to enforce this maximum, or a less extensive, area. While territorial sea jurisdiction due to the development of international law may extend to 12 nautical miles, it cannot creep to 200 nautical miles. Due to substantial variations, the EEZ cannot qualify as a similar zone adjoining the territorial sea. Further; it is difficult to argue that its reach should include areas beyond the territorial sea of Svalbard due to the very fact that its reach is limited to the ‘Svalbard Box’. Coastal state jurisdiction beyond the Box is not granted in the Svalbard Treaty but results from the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).

A Norwegian pillar in Svalbard: the development of the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS)

ABSTRACTThe University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS) is a unique institution with a history that is closely related to Norwegian policy regarding Svalbard, and to clever development of a highly specialised Arctic university institution by all the Norwegian universities. In practical terms, Norwegian sovereignty on the archipelago as confirmed by the Treaty of Svalbard of 1920 and regulated by the Svalbard Law of 1925, is maintained by the presence of Norwegian civil authorities and communities. Today, the “capital” Longyearbyen with its 2100 inhabitants is a modern hub for industry, education, research, logistics and tourism. Founded in 1993, UNIS has become a main contributor to this community, generating some 20% of the total economic activity. A prime motivation for establishing UNIS was to provide a supplement and alternative to the unprofitable, heavily subsidized coal mining industry, by using the location for research based education. In 2015, the mining company Store Norske Spitsbergen Kullkompani (SNSK) met with deep crisis again and significantly downscaled its coal production and work force. Thus, UNIS may play an even more important role as a cornerstone of the local community in the future. This paper discusses the establishment and development of UNIS, its organisation, capacity, and academic production in terms of student graduation and its scientific output, just as its future potential for growth is evaluated. Finally, we discuss the increasingly important role of science and education in Norwegian Svalbard policy.

The clear and present danger to the Norwegian sovereignty of the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone: Enter the snow crab

• We discuss the snow crab as a migratory but sedentary species, and its potential role as an exogenous shock to the SFPZ.

Spitsbergen Literature Lobby

The Spitsbergen (Svalbard) Question became an international political issue regarding the terra nullius status of the Arctic region in the light of growing commercial enterprise undertaken from 1898 onwards. The Spitsbergen Commission set up by the Peace Conference in Paris to resolve this question in the aftermath of the Great War awarded sovereignty to Norway. Elen C. Singh’s concept of the Spitsbergen Literature Lobby illustrates behind-the-scenes activity intent on resolving Spitsbergen sovereignty in favour of one particular nation, and/or securing the commercial interests of several nations. Documents analysed in this article include the initial Norwegian Government submission to the Peace Conference and the contemporaneous diary of one of its main compilers; Spitsbergen Literature Lobby texts cited by Singh, and other strategic texts published 1906-1919; and selected Spitsbergen texts published in the light of Norwegian sovereignty. Subject matter comprised Spitsbergen summaries, history (including Spitsbergen bibliographies), cartography, legal/political issues and commercial issues. The specific and general influence of the lobby and the expertise of its constituent authors is examined, as are their individual and collaborative literary efforts, as well as the rationale behind the selection of strategic texts and a summary of their time-scale, location and language of publication.

Informal diplomacy in Norway's Svalbard policy: the intersection of local community development and Arctic international relations

The Arctic archipelago of Svalbard is under a limited form of Norwegian sovereignty and its settlements – among the northernmost in the world – are sites of activity by a range of states, most notably Russia. Norway's Svalbard policy has historically focused on marginalizing Russian influence. Through the use of informal diplomacy involving the creation of an economically diverse town (Longyearbyen, population around 2,070) and the promotion of scientific research, Norway is consolidating its control over the archipelago. At the same time, however, it risks losing authority within Svalbard due to the strengthening of local democracy in Longyearbyen and the increasing opportunities in Svalbard for the involvement of non-traditional Arctic actors such as the Asian economic powers. This article considers the historical basis for the present situation in Svalbard as well as the complex results of Norway's attempt to achieve its foreign policy through informal diplomacy.

The Globalization of the Arctic: Negotiating Sovereignty and Building Communities in Svalbard, Norway

The Arctic archipelago of Svalbard has been under Norwegian sovereignty since 1920 yet remains subject to international law. Until recently, the islands’ only major economic activities were unprofitable Russian and Norwegian funded mining operations aimed at maintaining continuous settlement. Now, however, Norway’s top-down governance of the territory has been complicated by the emergence of economic diversity, multinationalism, and local democracy in the town of Longyearbyen. Simultaneously, China and other states are promoting their Arctic interests by exploiting the preoccupation with Russia that characterizes Norway’s Svalbard policy. By interpreting Svalbard’s local communities through the prism of international relations, this article highlights the practical challenges to creating genuinely international territories.

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSElferinkAlex G. OudeDrResearch Associate, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University051997441115122UlfsteinG., The Svalbard Treaty; From Terra Nullius to Norwegian Sovereignty, Scandinavian University Press, Oslo 1995, 572 pp., US$ 99/NKr 598. ISBN 82-00-22713-8.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19971997T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00004368a.pdfdispartBook Reviews*The reviewer wishes to thank Dr Harry Post and Dr Erik Molenaar for their comments on

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSElferinkAlex G. OudeDrResearch Associate, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University051997441115122UlfsteinG., The Svalbard Treaty; From Terra Nullius to Norwegian Sovereignty, Scandinavian University Press, Oslo 1995, 572 pp., US$ 99/NKr 598. ISBN 82-00-22713-8.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19971997T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00004368a.pdfdispartBook Reviews*The reviewer wishes to thank Dr Harry Post and Dr Erik Molenaar for their comments on

The Svalbard Treaty; From Terra Nullius to Norwegian Sovereignty. By Geir Ulfstein. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. 572 pp. including index and appendices

The Svalbard Treaty; From Terra Nullius to Norwegian Sovereignty. By Geir Ulfstein. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. 572 pp. including index and appendices

The Norwegian-Soviet Boundary

The Norwegian-Soviet boundary is of unusual interest for several reasons. Its long history involves the territories of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia and has been complicated by the migration of nomadic Lapps1 and by changing Norwegian sovereignty (in relation to Denmark and Sweden), Finnish sovereignty (in relation to Sweden and Russia) and by revolutionary changes in the government of Russia. The boundary was also closely concerned in events at the end of the first World War, in the so-called ”Winter War” between Finland and the Soviet Union (1939—10), in the Nazi occupation of Norway and Finland (1940—44), and the subsequent liberation of northeastern Norway and Finland by Soviet armies late in 1944. The region adjacent to the boundary is significant for other reasons: It contains valuable resources — especially iron ore and nickel; the Pasvik River has potential value for hydro-electric development, and for floating lumber northward toward a region where wood is scarce; there are relatively fertil...

Twenty-five years of Norwegian sovereignty in Svalbard, 1925–50

By a treaty signed in Paris on 9 February 1920, Norway was given the sovereignty of Svalbard, comprising all the islands situated between longs. 10° and 35° E. and lats. 74° and 81° N., thus including Spitsbergen, Bjørnøya (Bear Island), Hopen (Hope Island), Kong Karls Land, and Kvitøya (White Island). The treaty, which has since been recognized by a number of other states, was signed by the United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland, the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, and Sweden. The U.S.S.R. recognized Norway's sovereignty of Svalbard in 1924 but did not sign the treaty until 1935; Germany signed the treaty in 1925. On 14 August 1925, Norway formally took possession and the Norwegian flag was hoisted in Longyearbyen. Since then, twenty-five years have elapsed, and in honour of the occasion the anniversary was celebrated at Longyearbyen in 1950.