Century-Long Evolution of the Svalbards Legal Regime: Unresolved Issues

106
DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-12-123-132
A. Todorov (atodorov85@gmail.com),
Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO), 23, Profsoyuznaya Str., Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation

Abstract. Despite ongoing turbulence in international relations, Arctic is reasonably considered to be a region of stability. This is possible not least due to a state of legal certainty in the region, which enables the Arctic governance to be predictable and transparent. Some topical issues, however, remain unsolved. One of them is the Svalbard case. By signing the Paris Treaty 1920, the parties recognized Norway’s sovereignty over the archipelago with several restrictions granting other signatories equal rights to engage in commercial activities on the islands, a special taxation regime, etc. However, since the times of the Treaty, the world economy and the international law had been actively developing, with fishing interests of coastal states and technologies for deep-seabed mining emerging. Such legal notions as Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelf were adopted after 1920, and certainly could not have been regulated by the Paris Treaty. This rose the question of applicability of the Svalbard Treaty to the maritime zones off the islands, causing significant international attention and controversies. Since the late 1970s, Norway has been insisting that the provisions of the Treaty do not apply to the existing and potential maritime zones off Svalbard. Russia, Iceland, Spain, UK and some other countries disagree. The issue of maritime boundaries of the 1920 Treaty remains unsolved. It is obvious though, that the absence of a clear regulatory regime for fishing and deep-seabed mining in Svalbard’s waters is not in the interests of the Arctic states (especially in case of joint fish stocks of the Arctic Ocean). That is why it would be reasonable if the Arctic countries initiate informal consultations with other stakeholders. Though one should not expect fast achievements of this process, any positive and constructive advance would in the end contribute to strengthening the legal certainty and predictability for this region.

Keywords: Arctic, Svalbard, international cooperation, Svalbard Treaty, UNCLOS, fishery, exploitation of seabed resources, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone


REFERENCES

  1. Zagorskii A.V., ed. Mezhdunarodno-politicheskie usloviya razvitiya Arkticheskoi zony Rossiiskoi Federatsii [International political development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Magistr, 2015. 304 p.
  2. Adrov N.M. Issledovaniya Barentseva morya za 1000 let [Study of the Barents Sea for 1000 years]. Murmansk, Press, 2002. 186 p.
  3. Population of Svalbard. Statistics Norway. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/befsvalbard (accessed 15.02.2020).
  4. Numminen L. A History and Functioning of the Spitsbergen Treaty. The Spitsbergen Treaty: Multilateral Governance in the Arctic. Wallis D., Arnold S., eds. Arctic Papers, 2011, pp. 7-20. Available at: https://dianawallis.org.uk/en/document/spitsbergen-treaty-booklet.pdf (accessed 15.02.2020).
  5. Kasiyan A.S. Vopros o Shpitsbergene v rossiisko-norvezhskikh otnosheniyakh (1870-e–1953) [The Spitsbergen Issue in the Russian-Norwegian Relations (1870s–1953)]. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Seriya “Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki”, 2013, no. 1, pp. 16-22.
  6. Vylegzhanin A.N., Zilanov V.K. Shpitsbergen: pravovoi rezhim prilegayushchikh morskikh raionov [Spitzbergen: legal regime of the adjacent maritime areas]. Moscow, SOPS, 2006. 162 p.
  7. Churchill R., Ulfstein G. The Disputed Maritime Zones around Svalbard. Changes in the Arctic Environment and the Law of the Sea. 2010, pp. 551-593.
  8. Rossi C. A Unique International Problem: The Svalbard Treaty, Equal Enjoyment, and Terra Nullius: Lessons of Territorial Temptation from History. Wash. Univ. Global Studies Law Review, 2016, vol. 15, iss. 1, pp. 93-136.
  9. Treaty concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, including Bear Island. Available at: https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/004293 (accessed 15.02.2020).
  10. Treaty of 9 February 1920 relating to Spitsbergen (In Russ.) Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/902038168 (accessed 15.02.2020).
  11. Byers M. International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013. 322 p. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9781107337442
  12. Pedersen T. Norway’s Rule on Svalbard: Tightening the Grip on the Arctic Islands. Polar Record, 2009, vol. 45, iss. 2, pp. 147-152. DOI: 10.1017/S0032247408007973
  13. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_r.pdf (accessed 15.02.2020).
  14. Wolf S. Svalbard’s Maritime Zones, their Status under International Law and Current and Future Disputes Scenarios. Berlin, SWP Berlin, 2013. 37 p.
  15. Churchill R., Ulfstein G. Marine Management in Disputed Areas: The Case of the Barents Sea. London and New York, Routledge, 1992. 182 p.
  16. Pedersen T. The Dynamics of Svalbard Diplomacy. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 2008, no. 19 (2), pp. 236-262. DOI: 10.1080/09592290802096299
  17. Zilanov V.K. Arkticheskoe razgranichenie Rossii i Norvegii: novye vyzovy i sotrudnichestvo [Delimitation between Russia and Norway in the Arctic: new challenges and cooperation]. Arctic and North, 2017, no. 29, pp. 28-56. DOI: 10.17238/issn2221-2698.2017.29.28
  18. Kolodkin R. Dogovor s Norvegiei: razgranichenie dlya sotrudnichestva [Agreement with Norway: delimitation for cooperation]. International Affairs, 2011, no. 1, pp. 14-31.
  19. Østhagen A. Managing Conflict at Sea: The Case of Norway and Russia in the Svalbard Zone. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 9 (1), 2018, pp. 100-123. DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v9.1084
  20. Resource accounts as of 31 December 2019. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Available at: https://www.npd.no/en/facts/resource-accounts-and-analysis/resource-accounts-as-of-31-december-2019/ (accessed 15.02.2020).
  21. Østhagen A., Raspotnik A. Crab! How a Dispute Over Snow Crab Became a Diplomatic Headache Between Norway and the EU. Marine Policy, 2018, vol. 98, pp. 58-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.09.007

Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX

For citation:
Todorov A. Century-Long Evolution of the Svalbards Legal Regime: Unresolved Issues . World Eonomy and International Relations, 2020, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 123-132. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-12-123-132



Comments (0)

No comments

Add comment







Indexed

 

 

 

 

Dear authors! Please note that in the VAK List of peer-reviewed scientific journals, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of candidate and doctor of sciences should be published for the “MEMO Journal” the following specialties are recorded:
economic sciences:
5.2.5. World Economy.
5.2.1. Economic Theory
5.2.3. Regional and Branch Economics
political sciences:
5.5.4. International Relations
5.5.1. History and Theory of Politics
5.5.2. Political Institutions, Processes, Technologies

 

Current Issue
2024, vol. 68, No. 5
Topical Themes of the Issue:
  • Are There Any Ways to Break Through the Korean Nuclear Impasse?
  • Contemporary U.S. Taiwan Policy: Balancing on the Edge
  • The Gulf Monarchies’ Vision of the Global Order Transformations and the Russian Place in It
  • At Post-Soviet Space
Submit an Article
INVITATION FOR PUBLICATION
The Editorial Board invites authors to write analytical articles on the following topics:
  • changes in the processes of globalization in modern conditions
  • formation of the new world order
  • shifts in civilization at the stage of transition to a digital society

The editors are also interested in publishing synthesis articles / scientific reviews revealing the main trends in the development of certain regions of the world - Latin America, Africa, South Asia, etc.