525 
to NATO was only defused by Norway’s late 1951 assurances that 
the action did not affect the provisions of the 1920 Treaty.2° Con- 
tinued sensitivity was manifest when Norway began constructing an 
airfield in the early 1970’s (Norwegian reassurance of non-military 
intent was here to be supported by the agreed stationing at the field 
of a Russian contingent, to service Soviet planes and helicopters), 
and when Moscow demurred as regards the July 1971 Norwegian 
imposed petroleum exploration regulations.*! 
SVALBARD’S LEGAL STATUS 
The current status of international law concerning Svalbard and 
the surrounding waters and ocean beds is best approached from the 
vantage point of Norwegian interpretation, partly because her basis 
suzerainty is not questioned, partly because she commands a consensus 
on most points at issue: *? 
“The point of departure must be paragraph 1 of the Svalbard 
Treaty. According to this all signatories recognize Norway’s full 
and absolute /sovereignty over the Spitzbergen archipelago’s article 
2 of the treaty stipulates certain concrete restrictions to this 
sovereignty. But it is clear from the treaty that these special 
restrictions are specifically enumerated. Outside of these restric- 
tions article one’s main principle operates without limitations. 
‘““As will be shown, the Svalbard Treaty does not affect the 
Continental Shelf. The same comment applies to the sovereignty 
restrictions that are specifically enumerated in the Svalbard 
Treaty. 
“‘According to the Svalbard Treaty’s article 2 all contracting 
parties’ subjects have equal rights to hunting and fishing ‘within 
those areas mentioned in article 1 and their territorial waters’. 
That is, article 2 clearly and inequivocally asserts that it concerns 
not only the land areas mentioned in article 1 but also the terri- 
torial waters surrounding the islands. 
“It is likewise stipulated in article 3 that all Treaty members’ 
subjects shall have equal opportunity to conduct any maritime, 
industrial, mining and trade activity ‘both on land and in the 
territorial waters’. Again, this means on islands, large and small 
skerries, and the territorial sea. 
“The equal rights principle the Treaty prescribes in articles 
2-3 applies according to its wording only to Svalbard’s land terri- 
tory and Svalbard’s territorial waters. As concerns these specific 
areas there are certain concrete restrictions to the Norwegian 
exercise of sovereignty. Beyond these specially enumerated in- 
stances and certain other exceptions expressly mentioned in the 
Treaty, article one’s main principle operates without restrictions. 
. when articles 2-3 of the Svalbard Treaty also refer 
to territorial waters, and not just ‘land area’, then this is due 
30 Ibid. 
31 Tid. 
See also ‘“‘Report No. 39 to the Norwegian Storting (1974-75),”’ Concerning Svalbard, Prav- 
da/Izvestia, March 26, 1974 (re. airfield agreement), and Washington Post, Sept. 20, 1975 (re. 
same). 
ae regards the consensus, one might point i.e. to the following comment from “‘Sea Power”’, Op. 
Cit.: “the Norwegian Sea above 62N to its juncture with the Barents Sea—which Norway shares with 
the Soviet Union—is Norway’s property clear to Spitzbergen.”’ 
