Advertisement

Svalbard: International Relations in an Exceptionally International Territory

  • Adam GrydehøjEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The Svalbard archipelago (also known as Spitsbergen) is an international relations hub and home to the world’s northernmost communities. After centuries of being regarded as terra nullius, Norway gained jurisdiction over Svalbard through the Svalbard Treaty of 1920. The Svalbard Treaty also granted rights to nationals of other states, most significantly the right to undertake economic activity on equal footing. In order to reinforce their territorial claims, Norway and the Soviet Union/Russia maintained mining towns in Svalbard for much of the twentieth century. Today, the Norwegian towns of Longyearbyen and Ny-Ålesund are economically dominated by Arctic tourism and scientific research, while the Russian town of Barentsburg remains a “company town.” The rise of new economic powers in Asia (particularly China), assertive Norwegian foreign policy, and economic liberalization have combined to make Svalbard a uniquely international territory, with citizens from dozens of countries contributing through their very presence to diplomatic claims on behalf of their home states. Svalbard remains at the crux of a series of international disputes between Norway, Russia, and other states, involving marine territory, military activity, and environmental protection. Svalbard’s community life and its role in international relations can only be understood with reference to one another.

References

  1. Åmund, B. 2009. Dom stanser turistplaner i Barentsburg. Svalbardposten, November 20. http://svalbardposten.no/nyheter/dom-stanser-turistplaner-i-barentsburg/19.1162.
  2. Arlov, T.B. 2003. Svalbards historie. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2011. Den rette mann: historien om Sysselmannen på Svalbard. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
  4. Åtland, K., and K. Ven Bruusgaard. 2009. When Security Speech Acts Misfire: Russia and the Elektron Incident. Security Dialogue 40 (3): 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailes, A. 2011. Spitsbergen in a Sea of Change. In The Spitsbergen Treaty: Multilateral Governance in the Arctic, ed. D. Wallis and S. Arnold, 34–37. Helsinki: Arctic Papers 1.Google Scholar
  6. Baldacchino, G. 2017. Solution Protocols to Festering Island Disputes: ‘Win-Win’ Solutions for the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolongaro, K. 2017. Oil Lurks Beneath EU-Norway Snow Crab Clash. Politico, June 18. https://www.politico.eu/article/of-crustaceans-and-oil-the-case-of-the-snow-crab-on-svalbard/.
  8. Gerlach, J., and N. Kinossian. 2016. Cultural Landscape of the Arctic: ‘Recycling’ of Soviet Imagery in the Russian Settlement of Barentsburg, Svalbard (Norway). Polar Geography 39 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Government of Norway. 1999. Report No. 9 to the Storting (1999–2000): Svalbard, 1999. Oslo: Government of Norway. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/jd/Documents-and-publications/Reports-to-the-Storting-White-Papers/Reports-to-the-Storting/19992000/reportno-9-to-the-storting-.html?id=456868.
  10. ———. 2001. Ot.prp. Nr. 58 (2000–2001): Lov om endringer til svalbardloven mm. (innføring av lokaldemokrati i Longyearbyen), 2001. Oslo: Government of Norway. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/dok/regpubl/otprp/20002001/otprp-nr-58-2000-2001-/2.html?id=164762.
  11. Grydehøj, A. 2010. Uninherited Heritage: Tradition and Heritage Production in Shetland, Åland and Svalbard. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16 (1–2): 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2014. Informal Diplomacy in Norway’s Svalbard Policy: The Intersection of Local Community Development and Arctic International Relations. Global Change, Peace & Security 26 (1): 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2018. Decolonising the Economy in Micropolities: Rents, Government Spending and Infrastructure Development in Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland). Small States & Territories 1 (1): 69–94.Google Scholar
  14. Kovalev, A. 2017. NATO Gets All Hot & Bothered for Norwegian Archipelago, Russia Says Stay Out. Sputnik News, April 20. https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704201052827663-norway-russia-nato-archipelago-dispute/.
  15. Longyearbyen lokalstyre. 2015. Lokalstyrevalget. Longyearbyen lokalstyre, March 31. https://www.lokalstyre.no/lokalstyrevalget-2015.5730792-347088.html.
  16. Lüdecke, C. 2011. Parallel Precedents for the Antarctic Treaty. In Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces, ed. P.A. Berkman, M.A. Lang, D.W.H. Walton, and O.R. Young, 253–263. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution & Scholarly Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Machowski, J. 1995. Scientific Activities on Spitsbergen in the Light of the International Legal Status of the Archipelago. Polish Polar Research 16 (1–2): 13–35.Google Scholar
  18. Moe, A., D. Fjærtoft, and I. Øverland. 2011. Space and Timing: Why Was the Barents Sea Delimitation Dispute Resolved in 2010? Polar Geography 34 (3): 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mogård, L.E. 2015. Historisk thai-kvinne på Svalbard. NRK, October 27. https://www.nrk.no/troms/historisk-thai-kvinne-pa-svalbard-1.12624614.
  20. Nilsen, T. 2011. Russians Must Follow Norwegian Law. Barents Observer, October 14. http://www.barentsobserver.com/-russians-must-follow-norwegian-law.4972044.html.
  21. Numminen, L. 2011. A History and Functioning of the Spitsbergen Treaty. In The Spitsbergen Treaty: Multilateral Governance in the Arctic, ed. D. Wallis and S. Arnold, 7–21. Helsinki: Arctic Papers 1.Google Scholar
  22. Prince, S. 2018. Science and Culture in the Kerguelen Islands: A Relational Approach to the Spatial Formation of a Subantarctic Archipelago. Island Studies Journal, ahead of print.Google Scholar
  23. Rijkelijkhuizen, M. 2009. Whales, Walruses, and Elephants: Artisans in Ivory, Baleen, and Other Skeletal Materials in Seventeenth-and Eighteenth-Century Amsterdam. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13 (4): 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts, P., and E. Paglia. 2016. Science as National Belonging: The Construction of Svalbard as a Norwegian Space. Social Studies of Science 46 (6): 894–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rossi, C.R. 2016. ‘A Unique International Problem’: The Svalbard Treaty, Equal Enjoyment, and Terra Nullius: Lessons of Territorial Temptation from History. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 93.Google Scholar
  26. Rudnicki, J. 2016. The Hans Island Dispute and the Doctrine of Occupation. Studia Iuridica 68: 307–320.Google Scholar
  27. Saville, S.M. 2018. Tourists and Researcher Identities: Critical Considerations of Collisions, Collaborations and Confluences in Svalbard. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, ahead of print.Google Scholar
  28. Staalesen, A. 2017. Russian Svalbard Protest Totally Without Merit. Barents Observer, April 21. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2017/04/russian-svalbard-protest-totally-without-merit.
  29. Statistics Norway. 2016. This Is Svalbard 2016: What the Figures Say. Oslo: Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  30. Svalbard Treaty. 1920 [1988]. Treaty Between Norway, the United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland and the British Overseas Dominions and Sweden Concerning Spitsbergen, Signed in Paris 9th February 1920. Oslo: Royal Ministry of Justice. http://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-lover/data/lov-19250717-011-eng.pdf.
  31. Wråkberg, U. 2002. The Politics of Naming: Contested Observations and the Shaping of Geographical Knowledge. In Narrating the Arctic: A Cultural History of Nordic Scientific Practices, ed. M. Bravo and S. Sörlin, 155–198. Canton, MA: Watson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetownCanada

Personalised recommendations