The Svalbard Archipelago

Svalbard’s unique status

The Svalbard archipelago is in the High Arctic. It is halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole. It is a remote, icy and sparsely populated land. But it is deeply embedded in global power politics.

Svalbard stands at crossroads of:

- Arctic shipping routes

- Access to North Atlantic

- Climate and scientific research areas

- Untapped natural resources

The Svalbard Treaty from 1920 defines its unique status. It is the legal bases that defines who control Svalbard and how power is exercised there. Before that, Svalbard had no clear owner. Some states used the islands for hunting, whaling, and mining. This created competition and a legal blur.

The treaty recognized Norway as the sovereign authority. But all signatory states have equal rights to economic and commercial activities. These include mining, fishing, and scientific research. The principle of non-discrimination applies. Norway cannot favor its own citizens. The treaty also says that no permanent military base is allowed.

Why climate change matters for Svalbard?

Svalbard is one of the places on Earth warming the fastest. Climate change causes glacier retreat and shorter period of ice cover. Less sea ice means greater access to the region. It increases access to fishing grounds, shipping routes and seabed resources.

For these reasons, it is also a geopolitical accelerator. It transforms Svalbard into a strategic hub. Interests from China, the EU, Russia and the U.S. are rising.

But it also pushes Norway to enforce stricter environmental protection. Climate change becomes a political tool to justify increased control. Other states sometimes see these rules as a way for Norway to reinforce its sovereignty. They accuse Norway of breaching the treaty.

Resources at stake in Svalbard

Svalbard holds several strategic resources. Some have been used for decades. Others are still limited or controversial. This is mostly due to environmental and legal rules.

Coal is the only resource ever mined on a large scale. But today, it is no longer profitable. Norway closed most of its mines for environmental and climate reasons. Russia keeps mining mainly to keep its presence under the treaty. It is not for economic gain.

Fishery is more valuable today. Unlike coal or oil, fishing is active and profitable. The waters around Svalbard are among the richest fishing grounds in the Arctic. It is crucial for Norway and Russia’s fishing industries. It is also one of the main sources of tensions. Climate change is pushing fish stocks northward. As ice retreats, fishing seasons last longer and catches increase. This makes control over the waters more valuable than ever. The treaty guarantees equal economic access to all signatory states. But Norway applies restrictive policy on fishery. It established a protection zone around Svalbard to manage stocks. Russia and others claim that the treaty applies to all maritime zones around Svalbard. So, all signatories should have equal fishing rights.

There is also potential for oil and gas in the seabed near Svalbard. But exploration is very limited due to harsh climate and high costs. There are also strong environmental protections. There is also legal uncertainty over who has the rights to exploit resources due to the treaty. For now, oil and gas are strategic reserves, not active resources.

Svalbard may also contain minerals in its seabed. These could include phosphates, iron ore and rare-earth elements. But no large-scale extraction exists. The same limits also apply with legal ambiguity and environmental rules discouraging investments.

Scientific research and data are non-material but strategic resources. These include:

- Climate and atmospheric data

- Satellite ground stations

- Arctic observation networks

- Svalbard Global Seed Vault

Scientific presence gives states influence and legitimacy in Arctic governance.

Geopolitics around Svalbard

The treaty gives Svalbard a unique status in a region marked by growing competition and tensions. It makes it a pressure point; where international law, great power rivalry and climate change intersect.

Russia and China both signed the treaty. They conduct activities in Svalbard. But Russia challenges Norway on the treaty’s application. Often saying that the latter breaches it by using Svalbard for military purposes. Norway often sends a frigate around Svalbard to highlight its sovereignty. But this does not represent a breach if the purpose is not warlike. Russia also complains on Norway’s satellite station. It claims the data could be used for war purposes.

Russia is sensitive to these questions because Svalbard is in a strategic place for the state. It sits near key naval routes (Barents Sea to the Atlantic). These routes are crucial for Russia’s Northern Fleet in the Kola peninsula and its nuclear deterrence.  

Russia is also very attentive to climate change for the commercial development of the Northern Sea Route. It offers a shortcut for ships traveling between Europe and Asia. These ships would sail along Russia’s Arctic coasts.

Svalbard vs. Greenland

Svalbard and Greenland are both strategic. Climate change increases their value. Which in turn increases great powers interests for the islands. But their cases are quite different on many aspects.

Greenland is an autonomous territory within Denmark. There are no treaty or special status like Svalbard. It has its own government with a wide control over internal affairs. Greenland is not demilitarized. The U.S. is present at the Thule Airbase. It plays a key role in missile warning and space surveillance. It has a key role in NATO’s defense. Svalbard is more about soft power through science and research. It is defined by legal constraints, civilian presence, and treaty interpretation.

They are both rich in strategic resources. But the type, level of exploitation and political control over them differ. Greenland has some of the world’s largest untapped mineral reserves (rare-earth elements, uranium, zinc, iron, gold) and hydrocarbon. It already attracts strong interest from China, the EU, and the U.S. Svalbard does have strategic resources. But they are more limited and highly restricted. Plus, in Greenland their access is largely self-controlled.  This contrast explains why Greenland is seen as a future powerhouse. While Svalbard remains a tightly regulated and legally sensitive area.

Decoding geopolitics isn’t a job. It’s survival.

Joy