Equal rights or exclusive control? The Svalbard Treaty in the age of change
Abstract
The article concerns the geographical scope of the Svalbard Treaty. This agreement establishes a unique treaty regime for the archipelago and its waters providing equal rights to the resources of the archipelago to all contracting parties. But since the 1920s, the law of the sea has developed significantly. Norway argued that this development gave it the rights, first, to establish fisheries protection zone around the archipelago, and, second, to prohibit any resource extraction activities seaward the Svalbard territorial sea. Norway arrested a number of foreign ships involved in such activities. A recent ruling of the Norwegian Supreme Court, opposed by other states and the EU, has given a boost to academic debates on the matter. The question of whether the Svalbard Treaty, and in particular the equal rights provisions of Articles 2 and 3, apply beyond the territorial sea is not just an interesting theoretical problem. There are three principal issues where it makes a practical difference whether or not the Treaty applies: exploration for and exploitation of oil and gas; exploitation of snow crab; and Norway’s exercise of jurisdiction. Moreover, rapid ice melt and conditions of global warming, together with technological advances and increasingly accessible resources, have awakened competing interests. Thus, this study aims to answer the following research question: “What is the correct interpretation of the Svalbard Treaty as to its applicability beyond the territorial waters?”. There are two opposing positions in the studied literature. The first position (shared mainly by the Norwegian authors) advocates for a restrictive interpretation of the Treaty based on the original meaning of the terms at the time of its conclusion. The second position emphasises the object and purpose of the Treaty, arguing for the need for a dynamic interpretation of the geographical scope, taking into account the development of maritime law. This paper intends to analyse the validity of these assumptions, filling in the gaps of previous research.
Downloads
References
Вылегжанин, А.Н. (2010). Вопросы толкования и исполнения Договора о Шпицбергене 1920 года. Московский журнал международного права, (1), 4–30. = Vylegzhanin, A.N. (2010). Contemporary Interpretation and Application of the Treaty of Spitsbergen of 1920. Moscow Journal of International Law, (1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2010-1-4-30
Вылегжанин, А.Н., Зиланов, В.К. (2006). Шпицберген: правовой режим прилегающих морских районов. СОПС. = Vylegzhanin, A.N., & Zilanov, Y.K. (2006). Spitsbergen: legal regime of adjacent marine areas. SOPS.
Гнатюк, Г.Г. (1985). Шпицберген. В Ю.Г. Барсегов (Отв. ред.), Словарь международного морского права. Международные отношения. = Gnatyuk, G.G. (1985). Spitsbergen. In Y.G. Barsegov (Ed.), Dictionary of International Maritime Law. International Relations
Деканозов, Р.В. (1966). Международно-правовое положение Шпицбергена. Автореферат диссертации на соиск. уч. степ. канд. юр. наук. Свердловский юридический институт. = Dekanozov, R.V. (1966). The international legal situation of Svalbard. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of sciences in Law. Sverdlovsk Law Institute..
Коваленко, С.И. (2018). Роль ст. 31 Венской Конвенции о праве международных договоров в обосновании использования Европейским судом по правам человека эволюционного подхода к толкованию норм Европейской Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. Вестник Московского университета. Серия 11. Право, (5), 90–100. = Kovalenko, S.I. (2018). The role of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties in substantiating the use by the European Court of Human Rights of an evolutionary approach to interpreting the norms of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Episode 11. Law, (5), 90–100.
Побережная, Е. В. (2010). Актуальные вопросы правового статуса Шпицбергена и прилегающих морских районов. Актуальные проблемы российского права, (2), 316–324. = Poberezhnaya, E. V. (2010). Current issues of the legal status of Svalbard and adjacent marine areas. Actual Problems of Russian Law, (2), 316–324.
Смбатян, А.С. (2013). Человеческий фактор евразийского правосудия. Евразийский юридический журнал, 12(67), 26–30. = Smbatyan A.S. (2013) The human factor of Eurasian justice. Eurasian Law Journal, 12(67), 26–30.
Фифе, Р. (2004). Предмет и цели договора о Шпицбергене (Свальбарде) с точки зрения международного морского права. Московский журнал международного права, (4), 170–202. = Fife, R. (2004). The Subject and Objectives of the Svalbard Treaty from the Point of View of International Maritime Law.” Moscow Journal of International Law, (4), 93–136. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2004-4-170-202
Allott, P. (1999). The concept of international law. European Journal of International Law, 10(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/10.1.31
Anderson, D. H. (2009). The status under international law of the maritime areas around Svalbard. Ocean Development & International Law, 40(4), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320903285455
Ayaydin, E. (2024). Under the shadow of absolute sovereignty: exploring conditional sovereignty in the case of Svalbard geopolitics. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, (29), 265–284.
Churchill, R. (2022). The disputed scope of the Svalbard Treaty offshore: a new approach to resolving the issue. Nordic Journal of International Law, 91(4), 544–567. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-91040002
Churchill, R., & Ulfstein, G. (2010). The disputed maritime zones around Svalbard. In M. Nordquist, J. Norton Moore, & T. H. Heidar (Eds.), Changes in the arctic environment and the law of the sea. Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004177567.i-594.156
Crawford, J. (2019). Brownlie's principles of public international law (9th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198737445.001.0001
Dörr, O. (2018). Article 31. In: O. Dörr, & K. Schmalenbach (Eds.), Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_34
Dothan, S. (2018). The three traditional approaches to treaty interpretation: a current application to the European Court of Human Rights. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3241331
Dworkin, R. (1982). Law as interpretation. Critical Inquiry, 9(1), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/448194
Jennings, R., & Watts, A. (2008). Treatises. In R. Jennings, & A. Watts (Eds.), Oppenheim's International Law: Volume 1 Peace, 9th Edition. Online edn, Oxford Law Pro. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780582302457.003.0014
Jensen, Ø. (2020). The Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian sovereignty. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, (11), 82–107. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v11.2348
Johnstone, I. (1990). Treaty interpretation: The authority of interpretive communities. Michigan Journal of International Law, 12(2), 371–419.
Jonas, D. S., & Saunders, T. N. (2010). The object and purpose of a treaty: three interpretive methods. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 43(3), 565–609.
Kent, H. S. K. (1954). The historical origins of the three-mile limit. American Journal of International Law, 48(4), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.2307/2195021
Lekkas, S., & Merkouris, P. (2022). Interpretation of international Law: rules, content, and evolution. Netherlands International Law Review, 69(2), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00226-w
Ørebech, P. T. (2017). The geographic scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian sovereignty: historic — or evolutionary — interpretation? Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 13(2017), 53–86. https://doi.org/10.3935/cyelp.13.2017.287
Østhagen, A. (2018). Managing conflict at sea: the case of Norway and Russia in the Svalbard Zone. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, (9), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v9.1084
Rossi, C. R. (2015). A unique international problem’: The Svalbard Treaty, equal enjoyment, and terra nullius: lessons of territorial temptation from history. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 15(1), 93–136.
Singer, J. (2020). The case of constructive ambiguity in Israel-Arab peace negotiations. In Y. Dinstein, & J. Lahaff (Eds.), Israel yearbook on human rights. Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004440555_013
Stensrud, C.J. & Østhagen, A. (2024). Hybrid warfare at sea? Russia, Svalbard and the Arctic. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 7(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.233
Ulfstein, G. (1995). The Svalbard Treaty: from terra nullius to Norwegian sovereignty. Scandinavian University Press.
Urbański, J. A., & Litwicka, D. (2022). The decline of Svalbard land-fast sea ice extent as a result of climate change. Oceanologia, 64(3), 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2022.03.008
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
