This is Svalbard, a polar archipelago of mountains and ice in the arctic ocean, which is the
centre of recent maritime territorial disputes.
As we’ll discover in this video – treaties need to be written very specifically to avoid
deliciously semantic disputes that have major ramifications for geopolitics in the Arctic.
The Svalbard Treaty dictates rights and access to this snowy group of islands in the Arctic
Ocean, but before we dive into the treaty and current disputes, a very quick history
lesson.
Before Svalbard was the centre of current diplomatic debates – it was a hotspot for
whaling.
In fact, for a few hundred years it was used mostly for whale-hunting by people from various
parts of the northern hemisphere.
After World War I, during the post-war conference in Versailles – the Svalbard Treaty (or
Spitsbergen Treaty as it was known then) was drawn-up to officially give Norway “full
and absolute sovereignty” over the islands.
No disputes about that – according to these countries who have signed the treaty – Svalbard
definitively belongs to Norway.
But there’s a catch.
While Article I of The Svalbard Treaty gives Norway possession of the islands, Articles
II and III place massive conditions over this ‘absolute sovereignty’.
These articles give equal fishing and hunting rights on the islands, and in the territorial
waters of Svalbard.
They also ensure that all signatories of the treaty will have equal and unhindered access
to the islands and again, the territorial waters of the islands, including for mining
and commercial purposes as long as they comply with Norwegian law.
Other Articles prohibit the establishment of military bases on the island, ensure that
communication-towers are free for all parties to use, and confirm that it’s probably a
good idea to have a weather station somewhere – thanks Article V.
So it’s all pretty straight forward so far – Svalbard belongs to Norway, but anyone
can fish, hunt, and have access to the islands and their territorial waters including for
commerce or mining.
But right here is where it gets dicey.
Several decades after the Svalbard Treaty, the UN drafted its Convention on the Law of
the Sea, which defines exactly what territorial waters are, as well as introducing a raft
of protections – mainly for fishing and drilling – for waters outside of a country’s
territory.
This is explained in my previous video, but in short the territorial waters are 12 nautical
miles off the coast, and beyond that is international waters.
However, countries are allowed to set up an exclusive economic zone (or EEZ) where they
have sole privilege of fishing and drilling which can extend up to 200 nautical miles
offshore.
If a country can prove that their continental shelf extends even beyond the EEZ, then they
can apply to the UN for sole right of drilling on that patch of ocean floor too.
The interaction of the Svalbard Treaty and the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea is where things start to go awry.
It is Norway’s position that because the Svalbard Treaty gives them ‘full and absolute
sovereignty’ over Svalbard – that entitles Norway to set up an EEZ around the archipelago.
Remember that the Svalbard Treaty only offered equal access to the resources of islands themselves,
and their territorial waters, not to the international waters surrounding the islands, and Norway
takes this very literally.
But, in order to placate other countries that see this as rather a bold move, instead of
an EEZ Norway has instead set up a Fisheries Protection Zone (or FPZ).
Effectively, this means Norway sets the quotas of fish that each country can catch within
the 200 nautical-mile radius surrounding Svalbard.
The opposing view-point, primarily held by Russia, is that because the Svalbard Treaty
only mentions the islands and territorial waters of Svalbard – it does not extend
to the international waters surrounding Svalbard, and gives Norway no rights or sovereignty
over these.
This is a similar, yet opposite interpretation of Norway’s view.
Both countries hold that the Svalbard Treaty only applies to Svalbard.
Norway thinks this means the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea should apply in the
area surrounding Svalbard, and Russia thinks the Svalbard Treaty restricts Norway’s sovereignty
to Svalbard and its territorial waters, and so Norway should not establish and EEZ or
FPZ without consulting other signatories.
Russia still kinda abides by the fishing quotas given to it, except when they don’t.
There is also a third viewpoint, that Norway of course does have sovereignty over Svalbard,
but that the ‘equal access’ clause established in the Svalbard Treaty, should include the
maritime areas surrounding Svalbard too.
The reasoning for this is because the Svalbard Treaty was drafted before EEZ or FPZ even
existed – but the treaty’s intention to share the resources of the Svalbard archipelago
and its waters is pretty clear, and as such likely would have provided a similar provision
for the surrounding waters.
And as if the situation wasn’t murky enough, there is ongoing debate about if the continental
shelf on which Svalbard sits is an extension of Norway’s or if it has its own, and how
that might change access to oil and gas drilling on the ocean floor in light of the ambiguity
between the Svalbard Treaty and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The semantic Svalbard squabble is a perfect example of the confusion which new laws can
cause when not properly aligned with existing ones, and when countries’ best intentions
are overshadowed by simply arguing for what is most in their favour.
Thanks for watching this video about the geopolitics of the Svalbard Treaty.
Be sure to subscribe, and leave a big thumbs up for Article V. And check out my other videos
here!
Thanks for watching.