Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-67wr7 Total loading time: 0.4 Render date: 2022-12-08T06:57:48.606Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Demilitarisation and neutralisation of Svalbard: how has the Svalbard regime been able to meet the changing security realities during almost 100 years of existence?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Timo Koivurova
Affiliation:
Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, PL 122, 96101 Rovaniemi, Finland (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi, filip.holiencin@ulapland.fi)
Filip Holiencin
Affiliation:
Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, PL 122, 96101 Rovaniemi, Finland (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi, filip.holiencin@ulapland.fi)

Abstract

Norway will soon celebrate that 100 years ago, the former ‘no-man's land’ of the Svalbard archipelago was placed under its sovereignty. However, this paper focuses on another important and often omitted element also brought about by the 1920 Svalbard Treaty regarding its demilitarisation and neutralisation. We ask how has the Svalbard security regime been able to meet the various challenges it has faced over almost 100 years of existence? Also, given that the treaty was drafted at the beginning of the 20th century, are the security provisions of this regime already obsolete or are they seen still as valid, and more importantly functional against the backdrop of rapidly changing security realities? This paper then goes further and while it uses Svalbard as a case study, it tries to assess the role of demilitarisation and neutralisation in the modern context by trying to infer possible lessons from two similar regimes, which apply to Antarctica and the Åland Islands.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarø, J.T. 2015. En milepæl i norsk petroleumsvirksomhet [A milestone in the Norwegian petroleum business]. e24.no, 20 January 2015. URL: http://e24.no/energi/regjeringen-utlyser-23-konsesjonsrunde/23377907, (accessed 15 February 2016).Google Scholar
Ahlström, C. 1997. Demilitarised and neutralised territories in European perspective. In: Hannikainen, L. and Horn, F. (editors). Autonomy and demilitarisation in international law: the Åland Islands in a changing Europe. The Hague: Kluwer Law International: 4656.Google Scholar
Ahlström, C. 2004. Demilitarised and neutralised territories in Europe. Mariehamn: Åland Islands Peace Institute.Google Scholar
Almond, H.H. Jr 1985. Demilitarization and arms control: Antarctica. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 17 (2): 229284.Google Scholar
Archer, C. and Scrivener, D.. 1982. Frozen Frontiers and resource wranglers: conflict and cooperation in northern waters. International Affairs 59 (1): 5976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arlov, T.B. 1989. A short history of Svalbard. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt.Google Scholar
ASPI. 2013. Cold calculations: Australia's Antarctic challenges. Barton: The Australian Strategic Policy Institute. URL: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/strategic-insights-66-cold-calculations-australias-antarctic-challenges/SI66_Antarctic.pdf, (accessed 8 April 2016).Google Scholar
Åtland, K. and Pedersen, T.. 2014. Cold War legacies in Russia's Svalbard policy. In: Hoogensen, G.G., Bazely, D., Goloviznina, M. and Tanentzap, A. (editors). Environmental human security in the Arctic. Abington: Routledge: 1736.Google Scholar
Åtland, K. 2003. Russisk nordområdepolitikk etter den kalde krigen: forholdet mellom næringsinteresser og militærstrategiske interesser [Russian north policy after Cold War: the relationship between industry interests and military strategic interests]. Oslo: Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.Google Scholar
Åtland, K. and Bruusgaard, V.. 2009. When security speech acts misfire – Russia and the Elektron Incident. Security Dialogue 40 (3): 333353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailes, A. 2011. Spitsbergen in a sea of change. In: Wallis, D. and Steward, A. (editors). The Spitsbergen Treaty: multilateral governance in the Arctic. Helsinki: Arctic Papers 1: 3437.Google Scholar
Bankes, N. 2009. Climate change and the regime for the conservation of polar bears. In: Koivurova, T., Keskitalo, E.C.H. and Bankes, N. (editors). Climate governance in the Arctic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Chillaud, M. 2006. Territorial disarmament in Northern Europe: the epilogue of a success story? Policy Paper No. 13. Stockholm: SIPRI.Google Scholar
Churchill, R. and Ulfstein, G.. 2010. The disputed maritime zones around Svalbard. In: Nordquist, M.H., Heidar, T.H. and Moore, J.N. (editors). Changes in the Arctic environmental and the law of the sea. Leiden: Nijhoff, 551593.Google Scholar
Coffey, L. and Kochis, D.. 2015. The Baltic States: the United States must be prepared to fulfil its NATO Treaty obligations. Washington: The Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
Convention between Great Britain, France, and Russia respecting the Åland Islands of 30 March 1856 (46 BSP 23).Google Scholar
Convention relating to the non-fortification and neutralisation of the Aaland Islands of 20 October 1921 (9 LNTS 213).Google Scholar
Darby, A. 2014. China's Antarctica satellite base plans spark concerns. The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 November 2014. URL: http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinas-antarctica-satellite-base-plans-spark-concerns-20141112-11l3wx.html, (accessed 10 October 2015).Google Scholar
Dekanozov, R.V. 1966. International legal position of Spitsbergen. Sverdlovsk.Google Scholar
Dekanozov, R.V. 1968. Demilitarisation and neutralisation of Spitsbergen. Soviet Yearbook of International Law: 192194.Google Scholar
Fleischer, C.A. 1978. Le régime d'exploitation du Spitsberg (Svalbard). Annuaire Français De Droit International 24 (1): 275300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fløistad, B. 2008. Controversy over the legal regime outside Svalbard's territorial waters. Focus North 6-2008. Oslo: Den Norske Atlanterhavs Komite.Google Scholar
Johnsen, A.B. 2015. Russland protesterer mot oljeboring i Svalbard-sonen [Russia protests against oil drilling in the Svalbard zone] (interview with Geir Ulfstein). Verdens Gang, 2 May 2015. URL: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/russland-protesterer-mot-oljeboring-i-svalbard-sonen/a/23444540/, (accessed 5 February 2016).Google Scholar
Godzimirski, J. 2007. High stakes in the High North: Russian-Norwegian relations and their implications for the EU. Paris: Russia/NIS Center.Google Scholar
Grydehøj, A. 2013. Informal diplomacy in Norway's Svalbard policy: the intersection of local community development and Arctic international relations. Global Change, Peace and Security 26 (1): 4154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannikainen, L. 1994. The continued validity of the demilitarised and neutralised status of the Åland islands. Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 54: 614651.Google Scholar
Henriksen, T. and Ulfstein, G.. 2011. Maritime delimitation in the Arctic: the Barents Sea Treaty. Ocean Development and International Law 42: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holst, J.J. 1967. Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk i strategisk perspektiv [Norwegian security policy in strategic perspective]. Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt.Google Scholar
Holtsmark, S.G. 1993. A Soviet grab for the High North, USSR, Svalbard and northern Norway 1920–1953. Oslo: Institutt for Forsvarsstudier.Google Scholar
Jensen, Ø. and Rottem, S.V.. 2010. The politics of security and international law in Norway's Arctic waters. Polar Record 46 (236): 7583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, J.H. 2003. Russisk Svalbard-politikk. Eksterne og interne forklaringsfaktorer [Russian Svalbard-politics. External and internal explanatory factors]. Oslo: Institutt for statsvitenskap, Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Laruelle, M. 2014. Russia's Arctic strategies and the future of the Far North. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Lucas, E. 2015. The coming storm. Baltic Sea Security Report. Washington and Warszawa: Center for European Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
Lüdecke, C. 2011. Parallel precedents for the Antarctic Treaty. In: Berkman, P.A., Lang, M.A., Walton, D.W.H. and Young, O.R. (editors). Science diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the governance of international spaces. Washington: Smithsonian Institution: 253263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machowski, J. 1995. Scientific activities on Spitsbergen in the light of the international legal status of the archipelago. Warsaw: Polish Polar Research, Institute of International Law, Warsaw University.Google Scholar
Mathisen, T. 1951. Svalbard i internasjonal politikk 1871–1925 [Svalbard in the international politics 1871–1925]. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway). 2005. Report No. 30 (2004–2005) to the Storting. Opportunities and challenges in the North. Oslo: Government of Norway. URL: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kilde/ud/stm/20042005/0001/ddd/pdts/stm200420050001ud_dddpdts.pdf, (accessed 15 March 2016).Google Scholar
MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway). 2006. Recommendation No. 264 (2004–2005) to the Storting from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs concerning opportunities and challenges in the High North. Oslo: Government of Norway. URL: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/UD/Vedlegg/strategien.pdf, (accessed 20 March 2016).Google Scholar
MJP (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police). 1999. Report No. 9 to the Storting (1999–2000). Recommendation of 29 October 1999 by the Ministry of Justice and the Police. URL: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/report-no-9-to-the-storting-/id456868/, (accessed 14 March 2016).Google Scholar
MJP (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police). 2009. Report No. 22 to the Storting (2008–2009). Recommendation of 17 April 2009 by the Ministry of Justice and the Police. URL: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/e70b04df32ad45f483f2619939c5636d/en-gb/pdfs/stm200820090022000en_pdfs.pdf, (accessed 15 March 2016).Google Scholar
Moe, A. 2010. Russian and Norwegian petroleum strategies in the Barents Sea. Polhøgda: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
Molenaar, E.J. 2012. Fisheries regulation in the maritime zones of Svalbard. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 27: 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motsak, M.V. 2000. O natsional'nykh interesakh Rossii v Arktike [Russia's national interests in the Arctic]. Vojennaja Mysl’ 6.Google Scholar
Nilsen, T. 2013. Oil hunger not reason for Barents treaty. Barents Observer, 12 August 2013. URL: http://barentsobserver.com/en/energy/2013/08/oil-hunger-not-reason-barents-treaty-12-08, (accessed 10 December 2015).Google Scholar
Numminen, L. 2011. A history and functioning of the Spitsbergen Treaty. In: Wallis, D. and Steward, A. (editors). The Spitsbergen Treaty: multilateral governance in the Arctic. Helsinki: Arctic Papers 1, 720.Google Scholar
Oreshenkov, A. 2010. Arctic square of opportunities. North Pole and “Shelf” of Svalbard cannot be Norwegian. Russia in Global Affairs 4.Google Scholar
Østhagen, A. 2011. Debating the EU's role in the Arctic: a report from Brussels. Washington: The Arctic Institute, Centre for Circumpolar Security Studies.Google Scholar
Østreng, W. 1974. Svalbards situasjon i storpolitisk perspektiv [Svalbard in the perspective of high politics]. Internasjonal politikk 3: 679701.Google Scholar
Østreng, W. 1977. Politics in high latitudes. The Svalbard archipelago. London: C. Hurst and Company.Google Scholar
Østreng, W. 1978. The exercise of Norwegian authority on Svalbard. Background and conditions for change. In: Spitsbergen symposium. Groeningen: Arctic Centre, 113127.Google Scholar
Østreng, W. and Sollie, F.. 1977. Betydningen av Svalbard-traktatens artikkel 9 i relasjon til den miliær-strategiske utvikling i Svalbard-Barentshav-området [The meaning of Article 9 of the Svalbard Treaty in relation to the military strategic development in the Barents Sea area]. Internasjonal Politikk 4: 653691.Google Scholar
Pechurov, A.V. 1983. Shpitsbergen [Spitsbergen]. Moscow: Mysl’.Google Scholar
Pedersen, P. 2006. The Svalbard continental shelf controversy: legal disputes and political rivalries. Ocean Development and International Law 37 (3–4): 339358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T. 2008a. Conflict and order in Svalbard waters. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Pedersen, T. 2008b. The dynamics of Svalbard diplomacy. Diplomacy and Statecraft 19 (2): 236262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T. 2008c. The constrained politics of the Svalbard offshore area. Marine Policy 32: 913919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T. 2009a. Denmark's policies toward the Svalbard area. Ocean Development and International Law 40 (4): 319332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T. 2009b. Norway's rule on Svalbard tightening the grip on the Arctic islands. Polar Record 45 (233): 147152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T. 2011. International law and politics in US policymaking: the United States and the Svalbard Dispute. Ocean Development and International Law 42 (1–2): 120135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersen, T. 2016a. Russian military instructors plan to land on Svalbard. Barents Observer, 7 April 2016. URL: http://thebarentsobserver.com/security/2016/04/russian-military-instructors-plan-land-svalbard, (accessed 15 April 2016).Google Scholar
Pettersen, T. 2016b. Chechen special forces instructors landed on Svalbard. Barents Observer, 13 April 2016. URL: http://thebarentsobserver.com/2016/04/chechen-special-forces-instructors-landed-svalbard, (accessed 15 April 2016).Google Scholar
PST (Politiets sikkerhetstjenestes). 2010. Trusselvurdering 2010 [National Threat Assessment 2010]. URL: http://www.pst.no/media/utgivelser/trusselvurdering-2010, (accessed 14 April 2016).Google Scholar
PST (Politiets sikkerhetstjenestes). 2016. Trusselvurdering 2016 [National Threat Assessment 2016]. URL: http://www.pst.no/media/81093/PST_Brosjyre_Trussel_ENG.pdf, (accessed 14 April 2016).Google Scholar
Rivetov, P. 2003. Shpitsbergen: forpost NATO pod nosom Rossii [Spitsbergen: NATO's outpost under Russia's nose]. Pravda, 19 April 2003. URL: http://www.pravda.ru/politics/19-04-2003/838627-0/, (accessed on 11 January 2016).Google Scholar
Saul, B. and Stephens, T.. 2015. Antarctic in international law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Singh, E.C. and Saguirian, A.A.. 1993. The Svalbard archipelago: the role of surrogate negotiators. In: Young, O.R. and Sherenko, G. (editors). Polar politics. Creating international environmental regimes. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Staalesen, A. 2014. Exploring Spitsbergen shelf. Barents Observer, 22 July 2014. URL: http://barentsobserver.com/en/energy/2014/07/exploring-spitsbergen-shelf-22-07, (accessed 10 February 2016).Google Scholar
Staalesen, A. 2015. New reality for Norwegian defence. Barents Observer, 30 April 2015. URL: http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2015/04/new-reality-norwegian-defence-30-04, (accessed 10 February 2016).Google Scholar
Statistics Norway. 2016. Population of Svalbard, 1 January 2016. Oslo: The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance. URL: https://ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/befsvalbard/halvaar/2016-04-07#content, (accessed 13 April 2016).Google Scholar
The Antarctic Treaty of 1 December 1959 (402 UNTS 71).Google Scholar
Timchenko, L.D. 1992. Spitsbergen: history and modern day. Kharkov: Osnova.Google Scholar
Treaty concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen of 9 February 1920 (2 LNTS 7).Google Scholar
Ulfstein, G. 1995. The Svalbard Treaty: from terra nullius to Norwegian sovereignty. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Vegstein, L.U.L. 2015. Bitter oljestrid om Svalbard [Bitter oil-controversy about Svalbard] (interview with Jakub Godzimirski). Klassekampen, 28 February 2015. URL: www.klassekampen.no/article/20150228/ARTICLE/150229811, (accessed November 2015).Google Scholar
Vyleghanin, A.N. and Zilanov, V.K.. 2007. Legal régime of adjacent marine areas. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Lieungh, E. 2011. Professor: satellittstasjonen på Svalbard kan være problematisk [Professor: satellite stations on Svalbard can be problematic] (interview with Willy Østreng). NRK, 9 November 2011. URL: http://www.nrk.no/troms/professor_-_-kan-vaere-problematisk-1.7866534, (accessed 4 November 2015).Google Scholar
White Paper. 1975. Report No. 39 to the Storting (1974–1975) on Svalbard.Google Scholar
White Paper. 1985. Report No. 40 to the Storting (1985–1986) on Svalbard.Google Scholar
Wormdal, B. 2011. The satellite war: how new installations in the Arctic areas transforms the war. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
Wråkberg, U. 2006. Nature conservationism and the Arctic commons of Spitsbergen 1900–1920. Acta Borealia 23 (1): 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Koivurova and Holiencin supplementary material

Supplementary Figure

Download Koivurova and Holiencin supplementary material(File)
File 4 MB
7
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Demilitarisation and neutralisation of Svalbard: how has the Svalbard regime been able to meet the changing security realities during almost 100 years of existence?
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Demilitarisation and neutralisation of Svalbard: how has the Svalbard regime been able to meet the changing security realities during almost 100 years of existence?
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Demilitarisation and neutralisation of Svalbard: how has the Svalbard regime been able to meet the changing security realities during almost 100 years of existence?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *