The Arctic Countries’ Supply Chain Strategies in The Context of Arctic Territory Delimitation

The article discusses the supply chain strategies of the so-termed Arctic Five – the Russian Federation, Canada, the USA, Norway and Denmark, which have borders in the Arctic in the context of the search for their common goals and objectives in order to develop possible ways and means to solve the main common problem – the territory delimitation in the Arctic between these countries. Much has been written about the legal methods of maritime delimitation in the Arctic, but their essence is to compare the principles of “Sectoral division†in the Arctic with the norms of the 1982 “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seaâ€. Meanwhile, the current international situation and the current state of the Arctic countries in relation to each other in the sphere of military power, economy, science and climate change in the Arctic, force us to consider the issue of territory delimitation in the Arctic in an extensive aspect.Â

Uncertainty under Norway’s claimed exclusive rights over the Snow crabs in the Archipelago of Svalbard

This thesis explains the legal framework in the Archipelago of Svalbard with an emphasis on the Loophole area. The author will answer the question on what is regulating the Svalbard archipelago and can Norway claim exclusive rights over snow crab. Snow Crab as a resource residing also in the Loophole area has already attracted attention and brought two fishing ships before the Supreme Court of Norway. This thesis explains how the situation has evolved by giving the historical background of the area of Svalbard, provide an overview of the current legal framework, lastly, a case law analyses

Chapter 6 Norwegian–Russian political relations and Barents oil and gas developments

The political relationship between Norway and Russia will influence the development of Barents Sea oil and gas. The state plays a decisive role in both the Norwegian and Russian parts of the sea. It does so as a regulator, through taxation, and through the national oil and gas companies, Gazprom, Rosneft, and Statoil. Thus, if the two states have a good relationship characterized by mutual trust, they can coordinate, search for complementarities, and mitigate issues that arise. Furthermore, due to the rising cost of oil and gas production in the Arctic, many oil and gas fields there may deliver small returns on investments. Scale economies brought about by coordinated development, joint infrastructure, and information sharing can tip projects from being commercially unviable to viable. But this depends on the ability and willingness of the two states to actively work together

An Icy Invasion: Russia\u27s Seizure of the Norwegian Waters in the Arctic

Russia is aiming to expand its power in the Arctic Circle by acquiring unrestricted access to hydrocarbon reserves off the coast of the Norwegian Archipelago of Svalbard. Two bodies of international law govern Svalbard. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 ascertains Norway’s sovereignty over the archipelago and permits the signatory nations, including Russia, to conduct commercial activities on the land and in the “territorial waters”. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes maritime zones that allow coastal states to claim exclusive rights to their territorial seas and continental shelf. Norway holds that “territorial waters” in the Svalbard Treaty is the twelve-nautical mile territorial seas and limits Russia’s access to hydrocarbon resources there. Russia contends that “territorial waters” includes the 200-nautical mile continental shelf beyond the territorial seas. After analyzing both interpretations of the Treaty under the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, the Russian interpretation of “territorial waters” falters in many respects. This comment argues Russia’s aim for unrestricted access to Svalbard’s resources is a violation of UNCLOS. The international community must forge a uniform interpretation: The Arctic Counsel or NATO should demonstrate regional support, Norway should bring a case against Russia before the ICJ for encroachment, and Norway should place additional economic sanctions on Russia

From conflictual to cooperative approaches in Russian foreign policy – an examination of the Barents Sea Boundary Agreement

This paper aims to analyse Norwegian-Russian relations during the presidency of Dmitrii Medvedev from 2008 to 2012, with a particular focus on the main dispute between the two countries the last decades: the Barents Sea with respect to the 2010 Boundary Treaty. This paper is structured as follows. While it is outside the scope of this article to discuss the multitude of organisations, agreements and treaties governing the Euro-Arctic region, a brief survey of the organisations covering the Barents area is presented in a first section. Then a section on developments in Russian foreign policy and the Medvedev presidency follows. The paper sheds light on Russia’s economic and geopolitical interests in the Barents region. Doing so, it argues that the signing of the Treaty can be seen as an example of a change in Russian foreign policy under Medvedev to a more accommodating course with the West. The successful dispute settlement concerning the boundary delimitation was an illustration thereof, through peaceful negotiations based on international laws. As the focus is on the foreign policy of Russia, it will only briefly cover domestic factors in Russia and Norwegian foreign policy as factors contributing to the dispute resolution

Arctic Ocean Oil Rights: International Law and Sovereign Title

The Arctic Ocean has been identified as a region of potentially significant oil and gas reserves. It has significant political importance for its coastal states. These factors are complicated by its hostile geographical location and its extremely fragile and vulnerable environment. For an oil company to embark on exploration and exploitation in this region it must be assured of secure title to the oil it produces, and it is therefore this issue on which the analysis focusses. This thesis examines acquisition of title to petroleum in the Arctic region, analyses how secure such title is, and critiques the role international law plays in achieving security of tenure. It adopts a top down approach tracing title to petroleum in the Arctic from the international law level, through coastal states’ regimes, down to the oil company level. Analysing this chain of title, the study examines whether indigenous peoples of the Arctic have become stakeholders in Arctic offshore petroleum, whether international law with respect to indigenous peoples’ rights and self-determination has played any part in facilitating this development, and whether these rights have impacted, directly or indirectly, on title to offshore petroleum in the Arctic Ocean. The thesis also examines whether the other aspect of sustainable development of petroleum in the Arctic, environmental protection, affects either title to petroleum or its exercise. In examining the Arctic coastal states’ rights, the thesis identifies several new problematic legal areas, in particular in relation to the use of ice formations as loci for territorial sea basepoints, highly ambulatory coastlines causing issues for locating valid territorial sea baselines, and thawing subsea permafrost creating ‘ambulatory continental shelves’. Such issues, the study shows, may have serious implications for the validity of certain coastal states’ maritime delineations, with corollary implications for title to petroleum in specific offshore areas. The work also studies the national regimes and their licensing/leasing regimes and how title is conveyed in practice to the producing oil company. The study identifies the weaknesses in the international legal regime relevant to petroleum development and rights to petroleum in the Arctic Ocean. In particular, the relevant provisions of UNCLOS, which establish the basic legal framework of jurisdiction and sovereign rights of coastal states, are examined in detail and issues identified and analysed. Finally, the thesis reaches both specific and general conclusions and looks forward to the possible future resolution of some of the key issues identified by the analysis

National Interests and Security Policies in the Arctic Region Among Arctic States

The United States, Canada, Russia, and Norway are all Arctic states; however, they prioritize the region to different degrees in terms of investments of security assets and military presence. What explains why some Arctic countries prioritize the Arctic more than others? This thesis explores this question through using an issue-based approach, which looks at the salience of issues as having implications for foreign policy tools and measures. This thesis finds that having interests and stakes in the region of high overall salience contribute to an explanation of why some countries prioritize the region more, while low overall salience is linked to less prioritization of the region. By having assessed how national interests in the region drives security policies towards the Arctic, this thesis also provides an understanding of why the U.S. is not prioritizing the Arctic in a time when others are increasingly directing their attention to the region

Image of Russia in Norway and vice versa: cross-pollination

The present thesis project examines the concept of country image, namely the country image of Russia in Norway and vice versa. Modern world society is inclined to globalization and undistorted usage of information. In such conditions, majority have a common vision of the country image concept, but the structure of country image itself is unsystematized and occasionally undisclosed. Such a versatile aspect of modern international politics needs to be analyzed narrowly inasmuch as it plays prominent role in understanding ourselves in the modern multicultural society. This project is based on the empirical study of country image which has been undertaken in Murmansk, St. Petersburg, Tromsø and Oslo. The main objective of the present paper is to provide multilateral analysis of genuine country image of Russia and Norway. All data have been collected with the help of detailed anonymous questionnaire and unstructured expert interview. Results of questionnaire are analyzed with the help of SPSS Statistics software. Russian-Norwegian international relations are to be bright example of productive cooperation between states on both local and national levels over the years. The territory of high north, long history of interconnections between Russians and Norwegians, common border and absence of any armed conflict between states – all of this dictate specific perception and understanding of each other’s culture, history, and mentality. Such peculiarities and results of country image analysis allowed to disclose that both Norwegians and Russians pay same attention to the same components of each other’s country image – understanding and perceiving of nations have cross-fertilized one another: image of Russia in Norway and vice versa is cross – pollinated

A Unique International Problem’: The Svalbard Treaty, Equal Enjoyment, and Terra Nullius: Lessons of Territorial Temptation from History

The 1920 Svalbard Treaty conferred full and absolute sovereignty on Norway but paradoxically limited that sovereignty by conferring on states party to the treaty equal enjoyment and liberty of access provisions on Svalbard and in its territorial waters. Whether these provisions now extend to geographic areas adjacent to Svalbard’s territorial sea—specifically to Svalbard’s oil-rich continental shelf and abundant fishing stock of the superjacent waters of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—is a matter of considerable debate. Norway repudiates the dynamic legal extension of the Svalbard Treaty to these geographic areas, which post-date the treaty; other Arctic stakeholders, notably Russia, disagree. This Article concentrates on the problematic meaning of full and absolute yet qualified sovereignty within the context of the Svalbard Treaty. Focusing on the factual and historical circumstances, or effectivités pertaining to the archipelago’s 400 year human history are of essential but limited use given competing historical narratives. Instead, this Article concentrates on the historical and legal development of the concept of terra nullius, a term more elusive than commonly thought, and the ways in which states historically made use of that concept to forward territorializing interests over Svalbard’s newly emerging resources, even when pronouncing or professing interest in shared or condominium-like resource management arrangements. In an age of rapid ice melt in the cryosphere, accompanied by emergent technology and increasing access to previously unavailable or uncontemplated resources, Svalbard’s extended geographical area challenges global governance regimes and presents a cautionary tale about territorial temptation in the High Arctic’s diminishing global commons

Conclusions: Assessing, Comparing and Explaining Institutional Resilience to Climate Change

publishedVersio