The case in summary: The government has decided to stop the sale of the property Søre Fagerfjord in Svalbard, which has provoked strong reactions. The owners of the property, Aktieselskabet Kulspids, believe that the case belongs to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Several experts, including professor of jurisprudence at the University of Oslo, Mads Andenæs, believe the government has a bad case before it, if the case ends up at the ICJ. There is concern about adverse effects on national security interests if the property is sold to unwanted actors. Business Minister Cecilie Myrseth and government attorney Fredrik Sejersted maintain that the decision is not in conflict with the Svalbard Treaty. Lawyer Arnt Angell believes the decision could jeopardize Norway’s management of Svalbard in accordance with the treaty. The summary is made by an AI service from OpenAi. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publication. The government’s decision to halt the sale of the private property Søre Fagerfjord on Svalbard is causing strong reactions. – It is worrying that the authorities are now not taking into account the limitations on the Norwegian exercise of authority in Svalbard. This is what professor of jurisprudence at the University of Oslo (UiO), Mads Andenæs, tells news. The owners of the property Søre Fagerfjord, Aktieselskabet Kulspids, have reacted strongly to the decision. Lawyer Per Kyllingstad, who represents the company in the sale of the property, stated on Tuesday that he believes the case could belong to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Should the government’s decision be brought before the ICJ, Andenæs believes that the government has a bad case before it. – If the question had somehow come up before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, then it is a good case (for the owners, journ.amn.), he says. Government attorney Fredrik Sejersted disagrees with Andenæs. He himself believes that the decision is “safely within” the framework set by the Svalbard Treaty, which he pointed out in Thursday’s Dagsnytt 18. Read Sejerstad’s answer further down in the matter. Russian and Chinese interest When the sale of the property became known, Kyllingstad told Dagbladet that they consider China a “very close and real buyer” of the property. The Chinese embassy in Oslo itself does not want to answer news’s questions on the matter. – We have no comment on the decision taken by the Norwegian government based on national law, writes the embassy. Furthermore, the embassy maintains that all countries should comply with international treaties and international international law, such as the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Svalbard Treaty. – China has no geopolitical or security concerns in the Arctic region, and is willing to cooperate with all countries, including Norway, to maintain peace, stability and sustainable development in the Arctic based on the principles of respect, cooperation, win-win results and sustainability. NO COMMENT: The Chinese Embassy in Norway. Photo: Håkon Marius Brustad / news The Russian embassy, for its part, rejects any interest in the property. – No interest was shown in the purchase of the mentioned area in Russia, so the Embassy sees no reason to comment on this topic, writes the embassy in an e-mail to news. news clarifies that only states can invoke treaty violations, and thereby bring the case before the International Court of Justice. Kulspids can appeal the decision to the court in the usual way. The company has neither rejected nor confirmed whether this is applicable. If the case ends up at the ICJ, this will be the first time since 1993, when Norway and Denmark met in a dispute concerning the fishing zone between Jan Mayen and Greenland. REJECTS: The Russian Embassy in Oslo. Photo: Cicilie S. Andersen / news Støtte On Tuesday, one of the country’s foremost experts on the Svalbard Treaty, professor emeritus of international law at UiO, Geir Ulfstein, stated that the government’s decision is in violation of the treaty’s Article 7 on equal treatment. The decision came as a result of concerns about adverse effects on national security interests. This if the property had been sold to unwanted players. Law professor Andenæs says he stands behind Ulfstein’s statements. Arnt Angell, a lawyer in the Elden law firm, also does something. – My first thought was that this must be contrary to the Svalbard Treaty, which gives all countries the right to acquire property. I believe that using the Security Act to specify which countries can possibly buy the property is in violation of the Svalbard Treaty, says the latter. Angell assisted the private owners of the Svalbard property Austre Adventfjord with the sale. The property was bought in 2016 by the state for NOK 300 million. SVALBARD: Lawyer Arnt Angell assisted in the sale of the property Austre Adventfjord in Svalbard. Photo: Elden Advokatfirma – Regardless of the buyer, news has presented Andenæs and Angell’s statements to Minister for Business Cecilie Myrseth and Government Attorney Fredrik Sejersted. Myrseth maintains that the decision is not in conflict with the Svalbard Treaty. She also refers Sejersted, who is their representative in the case, for a legal opinion. He believes Angell’s statement that the decision specifies which countries can possibly buy the property is wrong. – The decision imposes a duty to obtain the ministry’s consent in every case of negotiations or sales, regardless of where the buyer is from. LAWYER: Government attorney Fredrik Sejersted represents the Ministry of Trade and Fisheries in the case. Photo: Hallvard Norum / Hallvard Norum Angell himself reacts to the government making such a decision for a property located 40 kilometers from Longyearbyen, and thinks it appears “unnecessary” and a certain overkill. – It is the owners themselves who have put the matter at the forefront, by marketing the property internationally as an opportunity to build infrastructure in what is regulated as a national park. We only take them at their word, by confirming the lien that has been on the property since 1919, Sejersted replies about Angell’s opinion. The government attorney points out that the decision is a precautionary decision, to avoid “unnecessary unrest and security”. Something he describes as “necessary and proportionate”. Read Sejersted’s further justification for why the decision is not a breach of treaty further down in the case. – Serious Even lawyer Angell believes that the decision, which he considers to be a breach of the treaty, could jeopardize Norway’s management of Svalbard in accordance with the treaty. – If it is confirmed that the government has breached Article 7 of the Svalbard Treaty, how serious will it be for the government? – I would say that it is relatively serious. This is a situation that we have never been in before. We have to think that the other nations that have signed the treaty can question how Norway exercises the sovereignty they have been granted over Svalbard. – There can be reactions that are difficult to predict, he continues. He himself believes that it is more likely that there will be a reaction from states with which Norway does not have security policy cooperation. No reactions When asked if the government attorney is aware that there have been any reactions, he replies: – No, we are not aware of that. And that would also be a bit strange, since this decision is aimed at a Norwegian company, and not at any foreign player. Sejersted rejects that the decision violates Article 7 of the treaty, as many now believe. In their view, nothing has come to light that would now indicate a renewed assessment of whether the decision is in line with the treaty. Furthermore, he refers to five reasons, each of which he considers “sufficient”, for this. – As stated previously, the state completely disagrees that the decision contravenes article 7 of the Svalbard Treaty. On the contrary, it is safe within the framework set by the treaty. Legally speaking, there are several reasons for this, each of which is sufficient on its own. Therefore, the decision is not in conflict with the Svalbard Treaty: Government Attorney Fredrik Sejersted believes there are five reasons, each of which he considers “sufficient”, for this. – Firstly, the wording in Article 7 does not cover a decision like this, which is aimed at the company and the current owners and only imposes restrictions on their discretion in the form of a duty to register, as well as obtain consent before negotiations or sales. Secondly, the requirements set for notification and consent are not dependent on national affiliation, and will apply to all potential stakeholders, regardless of where they come from. Thirdly, the conditions are based on the consideration of avoiding a sale to an actor who would be able to “use the property to challenge the Norwegian legislative authority and conservation regulations on Svalbard”, which is a legitimate consideration under the treaty, which could be used to refuse the sale, after a concrete assessment. Fourthly, the content of the decision is essentially just a confirmation of the private law encumbrance that has been on the property since 1919, and which gives the ministry the right to refuse consent to the sale, regardless of the treaty. And last, but not least, the decision is aimed at a Norwegian company, and the Norwegian owners, who in any case cannot invoke the provisions of international law in the treaty. Nor is it the case that the treaty prohibits the Norwegian authorities from treating their own citizens and companies more strictly than actors from other countries. – It can be added that within the framework of the treaty, the Norwegian authorities will of course have access to assess the purpose behind the purchase, whether this is to states or private individuals. Under this, the state must be able to ensure that the property is not assumed to be used for military purposes in violation of the treaty, or to challenge Norwegian sovereignty and legislative authority on Svalbard. – It can be added that should there be a reasoned request for the sale of the property or the shares to a particular player, it will of course be dealt with in the usual way, as stated in the decision, and within the requirements set out by international law. Hello! Thank you for reading the matter! Do you have any tips for this case or similar cases? Feel free to send me an email! Published 05.07.2024, at 20.09
ttn-69
Believes the government violates the Svalbard Treaty – the case may end up in the International Court of Justice – news Troms and Finnmark
