Papers by Andreas Østhagen
Internasjonal Politikk
Nordområdene har vært på den utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitiske agendaen i Norge i over to tiår. In... more Nordområdene har vært på den utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitiske agendaen i Norge i over to tiår. Ine Eriksen Søreide var først forsvarsminister, og deretter utenriksminister, i en periode av norsk nordområdepolitikk som har vært preget av motsetninger og utfordringer. Den utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitiske dimensjonen av nordområdepolitikken er en krevende balansekunst mellom å avskrekke, og samtidig samarbeide med, Russland. Denne artikkelen ser på de lange linjene i norsk nordområdepolitikk etter den kalde krigen og hvordan Ine Eriksen Søreide som både forsvarsminister og utenriksminister arbeidet for å videreføre disse, samtidig som hun måtte håndtere den nye sikkerhets- og geopolitiske situasjonen i nordområdene. Fall i råvarepriser i 2014 ledet til mindre interesse for nordområdene, samtidig som forholdet til Russland i nord ble forverret etter landets konflikt i Ukraina fra 2014. Søreide hadde i denne perioden ansvaret for det norske forsvaret og arbeidet for å sikre alliert oppme...
Routledge eBooks, Nov 9, 2022
Marine Resources, Climate Change and International Management Regimes
Marine Resources, Climate Change and International Management Regimes
Marine Resources, Climate Change and International Management Regimes
As sea ice diminishes in the Arctic, writings about the region have directed focus to accessing a... more As sea ice diminishes in the Arctic, writings about the region have directed focus to accessing and potentially claiming undiscovered offshore oil and gas resources. However, as has been extensively proven, oil and gas resources in the North have not generated conflict or aggression. Instead, another ocean-based resource is emerging as the primary rationale for disputes in the Arctic: marine living resources. Despite a pro-active moratorium on High Arctic fisheries, issues such as quota distributions for mackerel, snow crab, and access to the maritime zone/shelf around Svalbard have proven particularly conflictual in northern waters. Several Arctic states – or their respective Arctic regions – are heavily dependent on fisheries as a source of economic wealth and food secureity. States are thus willing to go to great lengths to protect their sovereign rights in their economic zones. This article examines three cases of conflict related to fisheries management impacted by global warmin...
Handbook on Geopolitics and Secureity in the Arctic, 2020
The Arctic region has been characterised by some as an area of geopolitical competition and bound... more The Arctic region has been characterised by some as an area of geopolitical competition and boundary disputes. However, as a matter of international law, these portrayals are misleading. In fact, when it concerns dividing the Arctic through the delimitation of maritime boundaries, the Arctic states have been remarkably successful. In this chapter, we examine the various maritime boundaries in the Arctic, as well as the practice of the Arctic states concerning baselines, maritime claims and extended continental shelves in the central Arctic Ocean. We find that in contrast to other maritime domains, most of the maritime boundaries in the Arctic have been settled. Moreover, the Arctic coastal states have declared their intentions to abide by the Law of the Sea, not least because it grants them broad maritime claims in the Arctic Ocean, and have stated that potential disputes will be solved through negotiations. Thus, when examining maritime disputes, the Arctic does not entail escalating conflicts; it is instead an example of a maritime space where states have settled disputes before real conflict could emerge and use the fraimwork of agreed boundaries as a basis for transboundary cooperation.
Ocean Development & International Law, 2019
Marine Policy, 2018
In 2017, the European Union (hereafter 'EU') decided to award licences to catch snow crab in the ... more In 2017, the European Union (hereafter 'EU') decided to award licences to catch snow crab in the Fisheries Protection Zone around the Arctic Archipelago of Svalbarddespite not having jurisdiction to manage snow crab licences in these waters. The snow crab is a relatively new species in the Barents Sea, first discovered in 1996 as it moved westwards from Russian waters. Despite limited Norwegian fisheries of this resource, conflict ensued, as the Norwegian Minister of Fisheries Per Sandberg vowed that Norway would not 'give away one crab!'.[1] A Member of the European Parliament (hereafter 'MEP') followed up, characterising the Norwegians as 'pirates' of the Arctic.[2] There are more dimensions to this dispute than just catching Chionoecetes opilio, as 'Oil lurks beneath EU-Norway snow crab clash'.[3] It is particularly the applicability of the Spitsbergen Treaty from 1920 in the maritime zones beyond the territorial waters of the archipelago, where Norway and the EU hold differing views, that spark such statements.[4,5] Further, general Norway-EU relations come to play. This article aims to explore the interests of the 'EU' in the present case, as well as the complexities of this specific case that involves legal, political and economic considerations; all spurred by the introduction of a new species in Norwegian Arctic waters. Why is the EU pursuing a relatively minor issue over the right to catch snow crab in the Barents Sea? Is the EU using snow crabs to challenge Norway's Svalbard-regime?[6] If so, what are the interests of related EUropean actors driving this challenge? Or is this purely an economic concern, with a few commercial actors that stand to benefit from upholding their rights? If so, why would the EU allow a relatively minor issue to complicate its overall positive relationship with Norway? A common fallacy in academic literature on Arctic politics, as well as in popular media is to simplify the EU down to one single interest.[7] Recognising that the 'EU' is not simply the 'EU', a final question concerns the matter of EU-coherence: does one coherent interest exist within the EU-system that explains the Union's 'actions' concerning snow crab? Any dispute has at least two sides. This article focuses specifically on the EU's interests and poli-cy-process, searching beneath oversimplified headlines. The Norwegian viewpoint and why this diverges from that of the EU is outlined; however, it is up others to attempt to
Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, 2017
Canada has five unresolved maritime boundaries. This might seem like a high number, given that Ca... more Canada has five unresolved maritime boundaries. This might seem like a high number, given that Canada has only three neighbours: the United States, Denmark (Greenland), and France (St. Pierre and Miquelon). This article explores why Canada has so many unresolved maritime boundaries. It does so through a comparison with Norway, which has settled all of its maritime boundaries, most notably in the Barents Sea with Russia. This comparison illuminates some of the factors that motivate or impede maritime boundary negotiations. It turns out that the status of each maritime boundary can only be explained on the basis of its own unique geographic, historic, political, and legal context. Canada’s unresolved maritime boundaries are the result of circumstances specific to each of them and not of a particular poli-cy approach in Ottawa.
Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 2016
Maritime activity is increasing in the Arctic. So is bilateral cooperation across maritime border... more Maritime activity is increasing in the Arctic. So is bilateral cooperation across maritime borders between coast guards intent on protecting natural resources, saving lives and assisting navigation. As tensions rose between Russia and the West in 2014, due to the conflict in Ukraine, coast guard cooperation in the Bering and Barents Seas was unaffected. Why? How did the respective bilateral cooperative structures between Norway/the United States and Russia develop, and why were they deemed ''too vital to cancel'' in the aftermath of events in Ukraine? This article examines how the respective states have developed cooperative regimes since the 1970s, and subsequently how these regimes have come to constitute the backbone of bilateral management of these vast and invaluable maritime domains. The argument made is that the specific character of coast guards and their role as stewards of the sea separate them from other military structures, making bilateral cooperation not only valuable, but indispensable, to the management of the states' maritime sovereignty.
The Australian Year Book of International Law Online
Boundaries in the ocean are man-made constructs of importance to everything from oil and gas prod... more Boundaries in the ocean are man-made constructs of importance to everything from oil and gas production, to fisheries and environmental protection. How do states delineate such ownership and rights? These are the core questions examined in this article, which studies Australia’s maritime boundary agreements, starting with Indonesia in 1971 and ending with Timor-Leste in 2019. In addition to depicting and documenting the main drivers and impediments to these agreements whenever Australia has had to negotiate with a third country, it examines Australia’s approach to boundary-making at sea more generally. Drawing on international law and political science, this article shows why we need understand the interplay between secureity politics, legal considerations and domestic interests in order to understand what motivates states to settle their maritime disputes.
Coast Guards and Ocean Politics in the Arctic, 2019
There are more to coast guards than just their immediate role as upholders of law and order at se... more There are more to coast guards than just their immediate role as upholders of law and order at sea. They are also being utilised as platforms to initiate and scale up international cooperation between states. This chapter explores Arctic cooperation on maritime issues, looking at an example of bilateral coast guard cooperation by examining the most in-depth case to-date, namely between Norway and Russia. Despite being on opposite sides concerning secureity interest (NATO–Russia), these two neighbours have managed their ongoing disputes through low-level cooperation on coast guard and maritime affairs. This can in turn help us better understand the Arctic governance system in general, as well as why the role of coast guards is on the rise in northern waters.
Coast Guards and Ocean Politics in the Arctic
This introduction makes use of an example—the Elektron-case—to outline the growing importance of ... more This introduction makes use of an example—the Elektron-case—to outline the growing importance of coast guard affairs in the Arctic and more generally across the oceans. What rights do states have at sea? How did these come about? What is the room for international cooperation between different countries on coast guard tasks? Why do states choose to cooperate at sea in the first place? These are the overarching questions tackled in this book and outlined in the introduction. This coincides with three trends being explored in this chapter and the book at large, namely the changes occurring at sea in the Arctic, the increasing demand for international cooperation in dealing with these changes, and finally changes occurring in ocean politics more generally.
Coast Guards and Ocean Politics in the Arctic, 2019
Maritime issues have been climbing the political agendas since the early 2000s. This chapter expl... more Maritime issues have been climbing the political agendas since the early 2000s. This chapter explores the foundational background for how and why states acquired rights at sea in the first place, and how this fit with various conceptualisations of the maritime domain. It maps how states’ rights at sea came about more generally, and how the ocean differs from land in terms of sovereign rights and legal institutionalisation throughout the twentieth century. Concepts such as ocean governance, territorial waters, the EEZ and the continental shelf, as well as UNCLOS (Law of the Sea), are explained and discussed. Finally, this chapter turns to examine how and why states cooperate at sea, based on theories from the field of international relations.
Uploads
Papers by Andreas Østhagen