Svalbard Treaty Research Articles

The Dispute over the Geographical Application of the Svalbard Treaty: Into a New Phase, An Essay in Honor of Ted L. McDorman

Under the 1920 Treaty concerning the archipelago of Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty), the contracting parties recognize the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the archipelago. The sovereignty is to be exercised subject to the stipulations of the Treaty, which include equal rights of the contracting parties to fish and hunt on the territory of Spitsbergen and its territorial waters. Consistent with the developments of the law of the sea, Norway has claimed sovereign rights over the continental shelf and established 200 nautical miles (NM) zones off its coast, including Svalbard. Norway established a 200 NM Fisheries Protection Zone off the coast of Svalbard. Several contracting parties claim that the equal rights under the Svalbard Treaty are applicable in the maritime zones claimed or established after 1920. This is disputed by Norway by referring to the wording of the Treaty, which stipulates that it is applicable within the 12-NM territorial waters. Owners and captains of vessels flagged in other contracting parties have protested and argued that the arrest and prosecution for illegal fishing in the 200-NM zone off Svalbard violated their equal rights of fishing. The Court had not addressed the question of the applicability of the Treaty provisions until 2023. In a civil case before the Supreme Court, a Latvian shipowning company argued that the snow crab regulations on the continental shelf in the Barents Sea were void as they violated the equal rights of contracting parties under the Svalbard Treaty to fish on the continental shelf. The Supreme Court concluded that the treaty provisions were not applicable beyond the 12-NM territorial sea of the archipelago. An attempt by the same company at international litigation through investment arbitration was also unsuccessful. As the dispute issue is settled within the Norwegian legal system, the dispute enters into a new phase.

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.

The myths of Svalbard geopolitics: An Arctic case study

The Arctic has become a victim of popularised geopolitical analyses. Common conceptions of ‘geopolitical rivalry’ being caused or even accelerated by sea ice melting are too simplistic. They under-estimate the complexity of the political and legal dynamics at play and over-estimate the explanatory power of geophysical change. Instead, we must examine the specific cases of geopolitics in the North. One such location is the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard. Misconceptions and myths also concerning this archipelago abound in popular media and some academic scholarship – regarding everything from sovereignty disputes to its legal and military status. Such misconceptions are intertwined with the actual geopolitical issues that concern Svalbard or stem from different interpretations of the Svalbard Treaty from 1920. These include the (1) explicit challenges to Norwegian policies on land; the (2) disagreement over the geographic extension of the Svalbard Treaty to the archipelago’s maritime zones; and (3) the potential military use of Svalbard in a larger conflict with Russia. This article examines the geopolitical aspects of this Norwegian Arctic archipelago, in order to provide greater accuracy to the growing popular and academic discussion about Svalbard and the wider Arctic.

Minding the Archipelago: What Svalbard Means to NATO

Although the opportunity, form and level of NATO’s High North engagement have long been a matter of debate, the renewed invasion of Ukraine by Russia and its strategic implications at the global level have dragged a reunified NATO into the Arctic as a fait accompli. Yet, the Arctic is not one uniform bloc. When pondering its involvement, the Alliance should consider the particulars of each Arctic territory in its area of responsibility. The Svalbard archipelago, under the sovereignty of Norway -the most vocal advocate of NATO’s High North increased presence- is one of the Arctic areas falling under NATO’s responsibility. Global geopolitical trends, combined with Svalbard’s specific points of contention, may exacerbate the risk of conflict affecting the archipelago. This paper argues that NATO should consider the security concerns specific to Svalbard when pondering its High North involvement and highlights two elements that should be factored in the Alliance’s strategic and operational thinking over the archipelago. The first relates to the diverging interpretations of Article 9 of the Svalbard Treaty while the second lies in Svalbard’s vulnerability to gray-zone tactics due to its particular legal and geographical features. Bearing these particulars in mind, the paper provides key recommendations for NATO to adopt a tailored approach to the archipelago.

The Svalbard treaty and identity of place: Impacts and implications for Longyearbyen, Svalbard

Abstract The Svalbard Treaty established Norway’s full and absolute sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard. At the same time, it also established special territorial status for the archipelago, providing nationals of all signatory nations equal access to its resources. During fieldwork in Longyearbyen, conducted as part of a bottom-up exploration of place in 2018, several recurring issues came up in the analysis of interviews with residents using grounded theory methodology. Two of these issues, sometimes linked and sometimes seen as separate, were a questioning of the legitimacy of the community and a sense of geopolitical vulnerability. These emerging categories led to a series of focus groups, conducted between December 2018 and November 2019, that was designed to explore the impacts and implications of the Svalbard Treaty through the articulation of residents’ lived experiences in Longyearbyen. This paper examines the findings that emerged within an Identity of Place framing that point to an inherent conflict between the Svalbard Treaty’s special territorial status and the possibility of establishing a fully functioning local democracy in Longyearbyen.

The Problem of Spitsbergen on the Pages of the Soviet Press in the Context of the Transformation of Soviet-Norwegian Relations During the Cold War (Based on the Materials of the Newspaper “Pravda”)

The article examines the changes in Soviet-Norwegian relations during the Cold War and the reflection in the Soviet press of one of the key issues of interaction between the USSR and Norway. After the Second World War, the strategic importance of the archipelago became obvious, so the USSR is striving to maintain its presence in Svalbard and comply with the provisions of the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, while Norway introduces its own legislation on the archipelago, limiting the rights of the countries signatories of the Svalbard Treaty. The study of the Svalbard problem and its influence on Soviet-Norwegian relations is relevant from the point of view of determining the causes of contradictions in modern Russian-Norwegian relations, changes and continuity in international politics at the present stage.

The Disputed Scope of the Svalbard Treaty Offshore: a New Approach to Resolving the Issue

Abstract The 1920 Treaty concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen confers sovereignty over Svalbard on Norway. It also provides that all parties to the Treaty enjoy equal rights of fishing and mining on Svalbard and in its ‘territorial waters’. Norway and various other States parties to the Svalbard Treaty disagree as to whether the Treaty applies to the continental shelf and Fisheries Protection Zone (fpz) of Svalbard. There has been much discussion as to the merits of each side’s legal position. This article does not contribute further to that discussion. Instead, it examines the three current principal issues where it makes a practical difference whether or not the Treaty applies – oil and gas exploration and exploitation, the catching of snow crab, and Norway’s fisheries jurisdiction in the fpz – and suggests how disputes relating to those issues could be resolved without having to determine whether the Treaty applies to Svalbard’s continental shelf and fpz.

Spitsbergen Through The Times

British mining and exploration companies were active in Spitsbergen, today Svalbard, between 1904 and 1953. This period was marked by events like the First World War and the signing of the Spitsbergen Treaty, some say Svalbard Treaty, and was therefore politically charged. This article investigates the British Arctic enterprise as portrayed in an influential newspaper, the London Times, where a diverse range of items appeared across the sections Advertising, Business, News, Editorials, and Letters to the Editor. Reports of the London Stock Exchange and the London Gazette serve as factual counterweights to potentially subjective media coverage. In four distinct phases, we see the archipelago’s emergence in global politics, post-war optimism until the settlement of all claim disputes in 1927, a quiet phase caused by global economic depression, and renewed but short-lived optimism after the Second World War. The paper concludes that the British Government took a stance in the Spitsbergen Question already in 1907, and the Times could not be instrumentalised to change this official political opinion. The study offers a baseline for new and comparative research using similar historical sources.

АРКТИЧЕСКАЯ ПОЛИТИКА ЕС: ПРАВОВОЕ РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЕ НА СОВРЕМЕННОМ ЭТАПЕ

The article examines in detail current & fundamental document of the EU about the Arctic — Joint Communication of the Commission and High Representative to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions № JOIN(2021) 27 final «A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic» (13.10.2021), which acts as new basic document of the EU’s Arctic policy, and defines it for the nearest 4-5 years. The context of document adoption, role & interests of the European Union in Arctic are considered. While sequentially analyzing the document, for each of its goals & sections author of the article examines relevant sources of law (treaties, EU acts), sets forth his legal assessment and proposes recommendations on the most disputable aspects (issues of oil & gas resources extraction and application of Svalbard treaty [1920]). Following the results of analysis, the progress advantages and omissions of the document are highlighted. Author of the article draws a conclusion, that such gaps are reserves for upgrading future EU documents on Arctic.

Weighing the Sources of International Law

Abstract There is a long-standing debate on the weight or preference given to different sources of international law in jurisprudence. This article aims to discuss the interplay of three pairs of sources of international law; namely between old treaties and new treaties, treaties and customs, and existing treaties and emerging treaties in the context of three regions which are featured with typical maritime related issues. In the Arctic region, the 1925 Svalbard Treaty and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) become the sources of conflicts or different legal positions between Norway and some other States who are parties to both treaties. In the South China Sea, the major legal issue, among many other important ones such as island regime, is the relationship between unclos as a treaty law and historic rights as a customary international law. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) may be influenced by the new instrumental arrangements made by Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (bbnj) negotiation, reflecting the importance of ensuring the emerging treaty will not interrupt the jurisdiction of established treaties.

Turkey's Interest in the Arctic Region: the Possible Effects of being a Party to the Svalbard Treaty

The Arctic Ocean's becoming open wider to international navigation for most of the time in parallel with global warming has attracted the attention of the world to this region. As the Covid-19 pandemic reveals the necessity to deliver products to the global market as quickly as possible, the possibility of intense use of the Arctic Ocean is increasing. This study aims to emphasize the increasing importance of the Arctic region from a maritime economics perspective and on the other hand to discuss the possible effects of being a party for Turkey to the Svalbard (originally Spitsbergen) Treaty. It is expected that the increase in global temperatures will result in important outcomes in the region especially regarding the new emerging navigational routes and sharing of the natural resources in the region. Analysis has been made on the impact of new security concerns on the sustainable maritime economy likely to arise in the Arctic region. As a result, the importance of mutual international efforts to maintain stability was emphasized and the importance of being a party to the Svalbard Treaty for Turkey was highlighted.

The Svalbard Treaty and research: Comment to Pedersen and Molenaar

The Svalbard Treaty and research: Comment to Pedersen and Molenaar

China and one hundred years of the svalbard treaty: Past, present and future

This paper aims to examine China’s engagement with the Svalbard Treaty over the past hundred years. It first provides an overview of China’s involvement of the Svalbard Treaty as part of the post-World War I international order. The paper then discusses China’s current expansion in the Arctic, including in the Svalbard Archipelago. As a rising power, China has become more and more confident in interpreting and shaping the existing global governance regimes in order to pursue its own national interests. This paper therefore sheds light on China’s potential future positions on the interpretation of the Svalbard Treaty in a changing world order.

Svalbard in transition: adaptation to cross-scale changes in Longyearbyen

ABSTRACT The backdrop for this study is the Norwegian national Svalbard policy, with long-term goals to transition Svalbard into a sustainable future without coal and to maintain Norwegian presence. Tourism, education and research are the three economic pillars. This transition affects the tourism industry, spatial planners, environmental officials, local politicians, port authorities and research community in Longyearbyen. We apply an adaptation framework and a community-based approach to analyse the multiple layers of change identified by key stakeholders: climate change, national policy and increasing tourism. Based on semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in Longyearbyen and document review we analysed the adaptation strategies and measures to address the challenges and opportunities from the economic transition sectors, climate change impacts, national Svalbard policies and increasing tourism activities. Adaptation dilemmas emerge for Longyearbyen: 1) increased tourism is a national goal while strict environmental management restricts its potential tourism operators, and 2) climate change creates hazardous conditions which require the local spatial planners to develop new safe housing areas, but the strict environmental protection limits the action space. A tension is therefore emerging between the national policy context (The Svalbard Treaty, The Svalbard Act, The Environmental Protection Act) which governs development and local adaptation options to address climate change impacts and increasing tourism.

The Liberation of Northern Norway in Stalin’s Post-War Strategy

ABSTRACT In the fall of 1944, during the stage of the preparation of the Soviet offensive in the Arctic, the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union prepared several memoranda with the proposal to revise not only the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 in favor of the USSR, but also to install several Soviet military bases on the territory of Northern Norway, all the way up to Tromsø. Negotiations on this issue continued until 6 August 1945, when they were suddenly terminated. After 10 days, on 16 August 1945, the Soviet side not only renounced its claims to Svalbard and Bear Island, but also organized an urgent withdrawal of its troops from Norwegian territory. On 25 September 1945, all Soviet troops left Norway. What was the reason for such a rapid change in the behavior on the Soviet side? The hasty withdrawal of Soviet troops was associated with more favorable conditions that could be obtained by Stalin in the course of the post-war world order than the acquisition of military bases in the Arctic. Subsequent events showed that in exchange for the withdrawal of troops from Norway, Moscow received a number of very important concessions in Europe. In addition, Norway declared the Northern border province of Eastern Finnmark a demilitarized zone. This policy of the Soviet Union toward Norway at the end of the war largely determined the choice of the Norwegian government in favor of joining the NATO bloc in 1949 — an event that led to a new round of escalation of the Cold War in the Arctic.

Рыболовный Шпицберген

The article analyzes the importance of marine fisheries in the area covered by the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, both for Russia and for other countries. The information on the history of the discovery and on marine living resources exploitation in the area is provided. The significant contribution of Russian scientists and fishermen to the trade is emphasized. Effective cooperation between Russia and Norway on fish resources monitoring and fisheries management in the framework of the SRNC was noted. At the same time, the disagreement between Russia and Norway regarding the introduction by Norway of a 200-mile fish protection zone around Spitsbergen necessitated Russia to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the national fisheries interests in the area.

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.

Snow Crab in the Barents Sea: Managing a Non-native Species in Disputed Waters

The introduction of a new species to the Barents Sea raises questions as to the rights and duties of states under the law of the sea to exploit, manage and conserve the species. This paper discusses three of them. The first question is whether the snow crab qualifies as a sedentary species. The entitlements and competence of states in respect of living marine resources depend on the location and the characteristics of the species. If it qualifies as a sedentary species under the law of the sea, it is subject to the sovereign rights of the coastal States. Otherwise, it is subject to the sovereign right of the coastal States as well as the freedom of fishing, dependent on its distribution. The second question is what, if any, obligations Norway as a coastal State has in respect of conservation and management of the snow crab and how Norway is complying with these obligations. This includes a discussion of whether the snow crab qualifies as an introduced, alien species and the possible implications for the obligations of the coastal State. The area of distribution of the snow crab includes waters within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard, raising a third question as to the implications of the 1920 Treaty concerning Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty) and in particular whether fishing vessels of Contracting parties have the right to participate in the harvest on an equal footing with Norwegian vessels. The Norwegian Snow Crab Regulations effectively reserves the harvest of snow crab for Norwegian fishing vessels. The paper discusses the implications of a recent decision by the Norwegian Supreme Court on dismissal of an appeal by a Latvian vessel and its captain convicted for illegal harvest of snow crab within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard.

Экономическая политика Норвегии в Арктике

Over the past few years, Norway’s energy policy has seen a remarkable turnaround related to the kingdom’s refusal to invest the Government Pension Fund’s money in the petroleum industry. This decision received mixed reviews from experts, who were arguing about its causes and possible consequences. In this paper the author intends to study the current state of the oil and gas sector of the Norwegian economy and development prospects for it. Oil and gas not only make up Norway’s main export item, but also allow it to occupy a more significant place in the European system of international relations due to its significant contribution to the EU’s energy security. Given the fact that the most efficient fields in the North Sea and the southern part of the Norwegian Sea are pretty close to exhaustion, Oslo needs new fields, and most of them are expected to be discovered in the Arctic. But there’s still considerable disagreement among the parties to the Treaty of Paris over the status of maritime areas around Svalbard, which remains the main obstacle in Norway’s way to arctic resources. Oslo takes a tough stance on this issue, which is not limited only by the declaration of its national interests, but is reinforced by decisive actions to protect them. As analysis shows, this policy works, but its success is largely determined by the passivity of other nations, which do not take specific measures to protect their own interests. Despite numerous threats to appeal to the UN International Court of Justice, none of the countries whose rights under the Svalbard Treaty were repeatedly violated by Norway have done it yet. Although the results of such a dispute may not be in favor of Norway, since its position on Svalbard, which was examined in the work, leaves many questions from the international law perspective. In conclusion, the modern energy policy of Norway was studied, as a result the author suggests that hydrocarbons will remain country’s principle export item in years to come, and changes in the state investment program should not be seen as an attempt to abandon oil and gas industry, but as the desire to diversify its economy.

Pride and Perseverance: Strategic Use of Rebus Sic Stantibus in Russian Foreign Policy 1870 – 1950

The paper examines the use of rebus sic stantibus, a claim that a fundamental change of circumstances warrants withdrawal or termination of a treaty, by Russia in three key episodes in Russian foreign policy. These episodes have not been examined together by scholars and have not all been analysed from the perspective of rebus sic stantibus. First, it examines the situation in 1870 when Russia used this approach to obtain the London Declaration, which revised unfavourable terms in the 1856 Treaty of Paris following the Crimean War. Second, it examines the Soviet attempt to terminate or renegotiate the Montreux Convention during and in the aftermath of the Second World War through the use of rebus sic stantibus and, third, it examines the Soviet attempt to renegotiate the Svalbard Treaty through the use of this legal approach. Notably, the analysis shows that these attempts took place during shifts in Russia’s relative power. Given the design of the treaties in question, rebus sic stantibus was one of the only ways to achieve these goals. In addition to providing a thorough study of episodes unexamined from an international legal perspective, the paper may therefore shed light on when rebus sic stantibus is useful and why it is relied on less and less by states today.