Today, the Supreme Court delivers its verdict on a civil lawsuit from the Latvian shipping company SIA North Star Ltd., which was convicted under the Marine Resources Act for having fished on Svalbard’s continental shelf. The decision will have great significance for Norway, because it has an impact on how the Svalbard Treaty is to be interpreted. If the verdict is in the shipping company’s favour, it means that Norway must share the resources located on Svalbard’s continental shelf. – And then it doesn’t just apply to snow crabs. This also applies to oil, gas, minerals and fisheries. The consequence of a judgment in which the Svalbard Treaty is applied on the continental shelf will have potentially major consequences for Norway, said Øystein Jensen, an expert on maritime law and law professor at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo when the trial began in January. This is the Svalbard Treaty International agreement, signed on 9 February 1920 and entered into force on 14 August 1925. Establishes Norway’s “full and unrestricted sovereignty” over Svalbard, including Bjørnøya, and that Norwegian laws and regulations apply to the area. Citizens and companies from all treaty countries have equal rights to entry and residence. They must be able to carry out fishing, trapping and all kinds of commercial activities on equal terms. All activities are subject to the legislation adopted by the Norwegian authorities, but no one can be treated differently on the basis of nationality. Taxes, fees and charges collected shall not exceed what is required to cover the expenses of administration of Svalbard. Svalbard is Norwegian territory, the Atlantic Pact therefore applies to the archipelago. In peacetime, there are no permanent military bases here. During the Second World War, there was a Norwegian garrison on Svalbard for a period. The treaty has today been ratified by 44 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, India, Iceland, Italy, Japan, China , Lithuania, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Korea, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Sweden, South Africa, South Korea, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, USA, Venezuela and Austria. Source: NTB What is the conflict? Today’s judgment will provide an answer to how far out into the sea the Svalbard Treaty should apply. Until now, the wording of the treaty has been interpreted literally. With that interpretation, the treaty does not apply beyond territorial waters. These are Norway’s maritime borders. The image is taken from the Norwegian Mapping Authority. Photo: © Kartverket And how far the treaty applies is important. For one point in the Svalbard Treaty is the provision on equal treatment. The agreement means that residents of all countries that have signed the treaty must be treated equally. Persons or companies from one of the 43 other countries that have signed the treaty must have the same rights as Norwegian persons or companies. If it is decided that the Svalbard Treaty applies beyond the territorial waters, the 43 countries also get the same right to the resources in the area as Norway. Snow crab fishing is the reason why the case is now in the Supreme Court. Photo: Ksenia Novikova When the treaty was signed in 1920, there were no provisions for either a continental shelf or an economic zone. It was regulated in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea from 1982. With these, Norway was able to expand its rights on Svalbard, but the Svalbard Treaty still stopped at the border of the territorial waters. Several states that have signed the treaty and the EU believe that the right to equal treatment also applies on the continental shelf, because provisions made after the treaty was signed must be taken into account. Norway is adamant that the treaty does not apply beyond territorial waters. Had a license from the EU The EU therefore believes that other countries have rights to fish on Svalbard’s continental shelf, and has given several boats a license to fish in the area. In 2017, they licensed 16 vessels, one of which was the snow crab boat “Senator”, which belongs to the Latvian shipping company that is currently in the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, they were arrested in January 2017 by the Norwegian Coast Guard, charged with illegal fishing of snow crab on the Norwegian continental shelf outside Svalbard. The snow crab boat “Senator” had been given a license to fish off Svalbard by the EU, but not Norway. Norway believes the EU’s license is invalid. Photo: Tarjei Abelsen / news Both the captain and the shipping company were sentenced to fines for breaching the Marine Resources Act. The Latvians chose to appeal the case. They believe they have the right to catch crab, based on the Svalbard Treaty’s principle of equal treatment and permission from the EU to fish in the area. The case ended up in the Supreme Court, which rejected the appeal. The case will still receive a verdict today, because the Latvian shipping company filed a civil lawsuit.
ttn-69
Supreme Court with judgment on the Svalbard Treaty – news Troms and Finnmark
