Talk:Svalbard Treaty

message: This article is pretty skimpy. For example it does not explain why such a variety of countries should be signatories - including not only Japan, New Zealand and Chile but even Afghanistan!  Can some historian put in a paragraph at least about this. Also needs a map showing territorial and 200 mile limits etc papermaker (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see - but do you think that the entire article should be moved to one that bears the name of the original treaty title then? To my knowledge, by far the most common name today is "Svalbard Treaty", even though the actual treaty itself was concluded before the Norwegianization years. By the way, perhaps it would be a good idea to have an article dealing with the controversies over the reintroduction of Nidaros, Oslo and Svalbard. What do you think? //Big Adamsky 08:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been working on this lemma on the Dutch wiki, I thought wiki should stick to the original name of the Treaty, Svalbard is, as said, not used in the treaty, I think using Svalbard Treaty is not quite NPOV, Russia and Norway are still debating the impact, we should not take sides. Peter boelens (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have strong opinions either way, but it does seem that "Svalbard Treaty" is more common in third-party English writings about the treaty. I have, however, found a few instances of "Spitsbergen Treaty" in modern scholarly works, so it's not entirely un-used. But is the name actually a political issue? I thought the Russian dispute was mainly over the scope of the treaty (whether it applies to the surrounding waters or just to the island), not over the name of the island, which they agree has full Norwegian sovereignty, subject to the treaty's economic and military limitations. --Delirium (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: My Russian is non-existent, but I understand that Russia still uses the name Spitsbergen. Svalbard was adopted by Norway to underline their claim. The Treaty states the full sovereingnty, but given the limitations in the Treaty it is a strange sort of sovereingnty. This summer I was on Spitsbergen, Russia (the Russian Coal Company) and Norway were arguing over the number of helicopter-flights between Longyearbyen and Barents(z)burg. Norway is limiting the number as part of their environmental policy (article 2 of the Treaty). Russia sees this as a violation of article 3 (liberty of access), so to say that Russia fully accepts Norwegian sovereignty might not be completely accurate. Peter boelens (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how it was called the Spitsbergen Treaty, and not the Svalbard Treaty, I'll be reverting it to its proper name. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Svalbard Treaty/Spitsbergen Treaty

message: It might be worth mentioning all the countries that signed the signature and if your looking to go there for a vacation, you can get there without a Visa if your a citizen of one of the countries that signed the Treaty. (74.122.179.108)
:done, but with outdated list. Alinor 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a time limit of signing the Treaty? (eg. 10 years after enetring into force) Alinor (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatories 

message: I find the last sentence very odd; "Under the 1920 agreement signed by 48 countries, all signatories have equal fishing rights near the Spitsbergen Archipelago, but Norway has been allegedly seeking exclusive rights to the area since 1977[citation needed]." The treaty grants equal rights within the territorial waters around Svalbard. Norway has not attempted to infringe on any of the rights granted in the treaty, but areas are subject to environmental protection, which the treaty binds Norway to do. What is being discussed is the Svalbard "EEZ". Here Norway allows fishing based on tradition, but maintains that it could establish a proper EEZ it wanted to as there are no limitations to Norwegian sovereignty outside of the territorial waters in the treaty. I think the sentence should be changed or removed. -- Nidator 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten/expanded this based on two references. Basically Norway and the USSR/Russia disagree over whether the Svalbard Treaty applies to the EEZ around Svalbard or just to Svalbard's territorial waters. --Delirium (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishing rights?! 

message: Does anyone know if the Republic of Ireland ratified the treaty?  When the treaty was signed, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and was therefore directly represented by the British plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty (whereas Canada, et al., were indirectly represented as pre-Westminster Commonwealth realms).  However, Ireland's independence was recognized prior to the British ratification of the treaty on 29 December 1923.  While I believe Ireland remained a Commonwealth member following independence, and only later withdrew, I'm unsure of how British legislation applied to them, since, unless I'm mistaken, they immediately adopted a Republican system which replaced the British monarch as head of state.  As such, did the British ratification of the Treaty affect Ireland or not? 75.154.72.240 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure about whether they ratified, but they remained under the Windsor Monarchy till 1949. Therefore it's probably in the same situation of the other dominions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Ireland informed the other countries in 1976 that it accepted the ratification of this treaty by the UK also for itself. Ireland is officially listed as having ratified the treaty together with the UK in 1923. Heitordp (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: Why is Ukraine present on the list (ratified 1935) but missing green colour on the coresponding map? 77.52.11.23 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ukraine has not ratified this treaty. I removed it from the list. Heitordp (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: Just a detail, but doesn't it strike anyone else as slightly ironic that the map showing the treaty ratifications doesn't actually show Svalbard itself? Verence (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I added Svalbard to the map, in blue. Heitordp (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Always assuming(!) the ability to get there, are there any passport controls on arrival? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open border? 

message: It seems that as Ukraine is not a signatory it is not green, buy Crimea is green. This would seem to support the position that Crimea is legally part of Russia. Controversial? 86.187.163.31 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map