The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?

The Svalbard Treaty and its claimed ‘extended-reach’ jurisdiction incorporating both the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – ie a fisheries protection zone (FPZ) – is an international law puzzle. Disputes regarding the Treaty’s jurisdictione ratione terrae results from interpretati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Peter Thomas Orebech
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law 2017-12-01
Series:Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.cyelp.com/index.php/cyelp/article/view/287
_version_ 1818562342230687744
author Peter Thomas Orebech
author_facet Peter Thomas Orebech
author_sort Peter Thomas Orebech
collection DOAJ
description The Svalbard Treaty and its claimed ‘extended-reach’ jurisdiction incorporating both the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – ie a fisheries protection zone (FPZ) – is an international law puzzle. Disputes regarding the Treaty’s jurisdictione ratione terrae results from interpretative differences. My findings are as follows: the Treaty’s concept of ‘full and absolute sovereignty’ refers to the one-time jurisdiction transfer that occurred in April 1925. The notion of ‘territorial waters’ attracts both an historic (static) and evolutionary (dynamic) reading. Regarding its material content, we are faced with the first category. Considering geographic reach, evolutionary reading takes over. ‘Territorial water’ jurisdictione ratione terrae is a generic form whose reach, which is at most 12 nautical miles, is dynamic. The treaty does not prevent Norway from unilaterally deciding whether to enforce this maximum, or a less extensive, area. While territorial sea jurisdiction due to the development of international law may extend to 12 nautical miles, it cannot creep to 200 nautical miles. Due to substantial variations, the EEZ cannot qualify as a similar zone adjoining the territorial sea. Further; it is difficult to argue that its reach should include areas beyond the territorial sea of Svalbard due to the very fact that its reach is limited to the ‘Svalbard Box’. Coastal state jurisdiction beyond the Box is not granted in the Svalbard Treaty but results from the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).
first_indexed 2024-12-14T01:02:26Z
format Article
id doaj.art-01ce8eda52be4ce197029067aa37f395
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1845-5662
1848-9958
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-14T01:02:26Z
publishDate 2017-12-01
publisher University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law
record_format Article
series Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy
spelling doaj.art-01ce8eda52be4ce197029067aa37f3952022-12-21T23:23:10ZengUniversity of Zagreb, Faculty of LawCroatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy1845-56621848-99582017-12-0113538610.3935/cyelp.13.2017.287The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?Peter Thomas Orebech0UIT Arctic University of Norway TromsöThe Svalbard Treaty and its claimed ‘extended-reach’ jurisdiction incorporating both the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – ie a fisheries protection zone (FPZ) – is an international law puzzle. Disputes regarding the Treaty’s jurisdictione ratione terrae results from interpretative differences. My findings are as follows: the Treaty’s concept of ‘full and absolute sovereignty’ refers to the one-time jurisdiction transfer that occurred in April 1925. The notion of ‘territorial waters’ attracts both an historic (static) and evolutionary (dynamic) reading. Regarding its material content, we are faced with the first category. Considering geographic reach, evolutionary reading takes over. ‘Territorial water’ jurisdictione ratione terrae is a generic form whose reach, which is at most 12 nautical miles, is dynamic. The treaty does not prevent Norway from unilaterally deciding whether to enforce this maximum, or a less extensive, area. While territorial sea jurisdiction due to the development of international law may extend to 12 nautical miles, it cannot creep to 200 nautical miles. Due to substantial variations, the EEZ cannot qualify as a similar zone adjoining the territorial sea. Further; it is difficult to argue that its reach should include areas beyond the territorial sea of Svalbard due to the very fact that its reach is limited to the ‘Svalbard Box’. Coastal state jurisdiction beyond the Box is not granted in the Svalbard Treaty but results from the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).https://www.cyelp.com/index.php/cyelp/article/view/287svalbard treatynorwayinternational lawexclusive economic zone
spellingShingle Peter Thomas Orebech
The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?
Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy
svalbard treaty
norway
international law
exclusive economic zone
title The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?
title_full The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?
title_fullStr The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?
title_full_unstemmed The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?
title_short The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?
title_sort geographic scope of the svalbard treaty and norwegian sovereignty historic or evolutionary interpretation
topic svalbard treaty
norway
international law
exclusive economic zone
url https://www.cyelp.com/index.php/cyelp/article/view/287
work_keys_str_mv AT peterthomasorebech thegeographicscopeofthesvalbardtreatyandnorwegiansovereigntyhistoricorevolutionaryinterpretation
AT peterthomasorebech geographicscopeofthesvalbardtreatyandnorwegiansovereigntyhistoricorevolutionaryinterpretation