• Norway claims to natural resources on the continental shelf was confirmed by Norway’s top court.
• Setting a precedent that could have significant effects.
• Norway is “happy” with the decision to have the issue heard by the International Court of Justice.

The Norwegian state’s exclusive claim to natural resources on the continental shelf surrounding the strategically significant Svalbard archipelago in the North was confirmed on Monday by Norway’s top court.

The case establishes a precedent that could have significant effects.

A complaint filed by the Latvian fishing business SIA North STAR, which sought permission to fish for snow crab on the continental shelf surrounding Svalbard, was unanimously dismissed by the Supreme Court’s 15 judges.

Different interpretations of the Spitsbergen Treaty, the 1920 law regulating the Svalbard archipelago, are at the centre of the argument.

Beyond the issue of snow crab, which is a delicacy in Asia, the case was viewed as a crucial test to establish who would control other wealthy resources presumed to be beneath the continental shelf, such oil and gas or minerals.

Norway has long maintained that it holds exclusive rights.

The Spitsbergen Treaty acknowledges “the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway” over Svalbard while also allowing citizens of other signatory nations to “enjoy equally the rights of fishing and hunting in the territories.”

Because of this, Russia can continue to support a mining settlement in the archipelago, which is midway between the continent of Europe and the North Pole, in an area that its Northern Fleet passes through on its way to the Atlantic.

The treaty’s language, however, restricts its geographic coverage to the archipelago’s land and “territorial seas,” a term that currently signifies a maritime zone of 12 nautical miles but was not precisely defined in 1920.

The entire continental shelf, a far bigger zone and a term that did not exist legally when the treaty was drafted, should be subject to equal rights, according to SIA North STAR, which is consistent with the treaty’s intent.

The terms of the treaty could not be subjected to a “extensible interpretation,” according to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the Norwegian state.

“There has been no development in international law which would result in the notion of ‘territorial waters’ today including areas beyond territorial waters,” it wrote in its verdict.

Norway is almost the only state that applies a limited interpretation of the treaty, in contrast to the majority of the other treaty signatories—more than 40 nations, including Latvia, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

An international court has never been asked to hear the case.

“We are disappointed but we are not really surprised by the verdict, this case has a lot of legal and political aspects,” the lawyer for the Latvian company, Hallvard Ostgard, told AFP.

He stated that he would prefer to have the issue heard by the International Court of Justice, which exclusively hears claims presented by states.

The Norwegian government declared itself “happy” with the decision.

“It’s an important national clarification for a question that has been raised on several occasions in Norwegian courts,” Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt told AFP.

[embedpost slug=”the-norwegian-energy-firm-completes-russia-exit/”]