Russia and Norway

Russia and Norway are long-standing partners having a common land and sea border and maintaining relatively stable interstate relations. The history of bilateral contacts is rooted in the past and is determined by geographical and historical factors, as well as by the presence of common interests and close joint cooperation in the research activities of the Arctic space, as well as interaction within international forums and regional organizations, such as, for example, the Arctic Council, Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC), Nordic Council of Ministers, etc.

Along with this, Norway is the subject of international law with which it is most difficult to agree on a fair, from the Russian point of view, use of Arctic wealth1. Dynamic and active interaction on the one hand, and the presence of mutual contradictions on the other, complicate the development of a full-scale partnership between the two states. In addition, as rightly noted by the Russian ambassador to Norway (1995 -1997), Yu.E. Fokin, that the main difficulty in relations with Norway is "this is the legacy inherited from the Cold War: fear, mistrust, suspicion."³²

Nevertheless, states proceeding, first of all, from their own national interests, strive to prevent the development of bilateral contradictions into an open confrontational phase, while maintaining balanced good neighborly relations.

Speaking generally about Russian-Norwegian relations, it should be understood that the political climate is determined not by the polar breathing of relapses of suspicion and fear, but by close historical ties. In addition, modern Russia in the Norwegian consciousness is perceived not as a “geopolitical threat” during the Cold War, but as a “geo-economic” competitor in the framework of the modern world (including energy) market. However, given the positive side of the interaction, one cannot but pay attention to those aspects in which tension is already present and which in the future may become a stumbling block in relations between the two states.

A striking example is Norway's discriminatory policy regarding Russia's presence on the Svalbard archipelago. Modern misunderstandings of Russia and Norway regarding the status of Spitsbergen began, of course, not recently. The genesis of these contradictions was laid back in the early twentieth century, when in 1920 Norway gained legally-fixed sovereignty over the archipelago with a substantial reservation that the states that joined the treaty will have the same rights to economic activity as the sovereign state³³. In 1977, when Norway unilaterally introduced legislation on a 200-mile fish protection zone around Spitsbergen, the first contours of interstate disagreements formed. The rights of Russian citizens to fish were significantly

32 Lev M. Poval, Russian-Norwegian Agreements on the Division of Arctic Spaces (Arctic and the North №. 6, 2012), 18

33 The Spitsbergen Treaty http://library.arcticportal.org/1909/1/The_Svalbard_Treaty_9ssFy.pdf

limited. The exchange of diplomatic notes that followed led to nothing. It should be assumed that these differences are associated not only with the abundance of biological resources in the region, but also with the likelihood of the upcoming development of oil reserves around Svalbard and potential competition in the region. Thus, the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Junas Gahr Store, in 2006, that “If oil is found in the Svalbard area, only Norway has the right to determine when and who and under what conditions it will be extracted,” are indicative.³⁴

Nevertheless, international organizations as well as Russian oil corporations always saw the region as free for economic activity, referring to international law, and intended to increase their presence in it, and this, in turn, could provoke a conflict. In addition, in 2015, Norway put up for sale oil fields on the shelf of the archipelago, which, according to Greenpeace, is an international provocation³⁵.

Declaring joint collaboration, the Norwegians repeatedly acted separately and oppositely.

For example, the resolution of the historical question of delimiting maritime spaces in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean in 2010 was an example of lengthy and difficult diplomatic negotiations between states. The dispute about the ownership of territories arose in the 70s. of last century. Since 1988, there have been attempts to resolve it (proposal by N. I. Ryzhkov to create a joint zone of partnership), which, however, did not lead to the desired result.

Norwegians only stated that they usually did not risk investing heavily in areas of uncertain jurisdiction³⁶. After long efforts in 2010, a breakthrough in the territorial issue was nevertheless achieved. The delineation agreement was signed in Murmansk, an outpost of Russia in the Arctic. Despite the settlement of subsurface use issues for each of the fields, as well as the joint development of oil and gas reserves in the disputed area, there are “loopholes” in the agreement that can become a serious obstacle to further cooperation in the energy sector.

So, in accordance with Art. 3 of the treaty, a zone called the “Special Region” was allocated, in which Russia is authorized to exercise its rights, it can be said, by proxy of Norway.

This unusual legal construction does not introduce specifics, and thus, in the future, may lead to a new round of rivalry in this territory. Also, it should be noted that the treaty does not mention anything about the status of Svalbard, which is de facto recognition of Norwegian actions on the Russian side³⁷. Nevertheless, the treaty has historical significance, since the problem of

34 Aleksandr Vilegzhanin, Viacheslav Zilanoa, Svalbard: legal regime of adjacent marine areas ( Theory and Practice of Maritime Activities,. No. 10, 2006), 9

35 Vladimir Chuprov, Norway should not produce oil on offshore Svalbard http://www.greenpeace.org/russia/ru/news/blogs/green-planet/blog/52821/

36 Andrey Krivorotov, The Unequal Division in Half: to the Signing of the Russian-Norwegian Agreement on the Delimitation in the Arctic

37 Arne Treholt, Grey zones (international relations, 2016), 63

delimitation of borders was eliminated and a point (albeit not sure) was put on the territorial issue between the Arctic states. It is expected that the signed agreement will give an impetus to deepening cooperation between states in the field of fuel and energy complex, environmental safety and joint development of Arctic deposits.

Despite the fact that acute issues between Russia and Norway have been resolved, one should not forget that Norway has been a member of NATO since the emergence of this alliance.

Against the background of the aggravation of the international situation, as well as in connection with the incitement of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, the intensity of bilateral contacts between the states decreased markedly. In addition, while not a member of the EU, Norway pursues a policy in its wake, supporting sanctioned methods for resolving global problems. In addition to adopting the main package of sanctions against the Russian Federation, technologies and equipment necessary for the development of oil and offshore fields became additional restrictions on exports to Russia from Norway. The sanctions also included Rosneft, Transneft, Gazprom Neft, Uralvagonzavod, United Aviation Corporation and Oboronprom Holding, etc.

Such actions on the Norwegian side are predictable, as the country is a direct competitor to Russia in the struggle for European energy markets. However, such unacceptable actions force Russia to act on the basis of reciprocity, which does not give a partnership spirit in the relations between the two states.

Nevertheless, despite competition in the field of energy exports to Europe, attempts to appropriate more oil and gas territories and the presence of completely unresolved issues, political and economic ties between Russia and Norway remain at a satisfactory level.

Cooperation is being carried out in other equally important areas, as well as contacts are being built up with a view to resolving bilateral relations. Neighboring states cooperate in the environmental field, conduct joint research activities in the energy sector, and also plan to implement a joint project of oceanological observations. Joint efforts are still being made in Arctic exploration. According to the Norwegian Foreign Minister, the country wants to move forward in developing a new type of relationship with Russia built on joint opportunities³⁸.

Thus, despite the problematic aspects, Russian-Norwegian relations are an integral element of the interaction of the Arctic states. The presence of contradictions cannot disrupt the positive dynamics of historical cooperation. Norway is an important neighbor of Russia with significant experience in the field of development and use of hydrocarbons, and Russia is a reliable foreign policy and economic partner, without which it is not possible to solve regional problems. The current geopolitical situation in the world dictates its own rules, within the

38 Anastasia Flegentova, The Russian-Norwegian Relations: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow (Topical issues of contemporary international relations № 5, 2013), 30

framework of which the need for the extraction of energy resources increases. This circumstance encourages states to increase export volumes, and at the same time, strengthen contacts between states to exchange certain skills and technologies. Based on this, it should be understood that it is necessary to overcome difficulties in Russian-Norwegian energy relations on a mutually beneficial and constructive basis, as well as strive to preserve them and, in the long term, to transform taking into account the development of international relations.