Australia–Norway relations

Last updated

Australian–Norwegian relations
Australia Norway Locator.png
Flag of Australia (converted).svg
Australia 		Flag of Norway.svg
Norway
Diplomatic mission
Australian Embassy, OsloRoyal Norwegian Embassy, Canberra, Australia
Envoy
Australian Ambassador to Denmark, Norway and Iceland H.E. MaryEllen MillerNorwegian Ambassador to Australia H.E. Paul Gulleik Larsen

Diplomatic relations between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Kingdom of Norway were established in 1947. [1]

Contents

Australia and Norway collaborate in managing matters related to Antarctica. [1] Both countries have Territorial claims in Antarctica, and they share a mutual border at 45 degree East longitude. [2] They also completely accept each other's territorial claims in the continent. [3]

Australia and Norway share similar views in many matters, including human rights, international peace and order, sustainability, and open trade. [1] The two nations’ stances on whaling issues, however, are dissimilar.

In 2001, disagreements on the MV Tampa affair resulted in intense public exchanges between the authorities of Australia and Norway. [4]

Bilateral trade between Australia and Norway has gradually increased. The two nations have also entered into trade agreements and other affiliations.

Australia currently has no consulate in Norway, but instead refer to their embassy in Denmark. [5] Norway has an embassy in Canberra.

Antarctic issues

Map that shows territorial claims on Antarctica Antarctic region. LOC 00559366.jpg
Map that shows territorial claims on Antarctica

Australia and Norway, together with New Zealand, France and the United Kingdom, are the only nations that jointly recognize the sovereignty over the territorial claims in Antarctica of each other. [3] [6] [7]

Under the Antarctic Treaty, Australia, like Norway, each possesses two distinct territories in the region. [8] Of their territories, Dronning Maud Land of Norway and Australian Antarctic Territory share a border in the east of the Norwegian territory and the west of the Australian territory at 45 degree East longitude. [8]

The agreement about the limit between the two countries’ territories is the result of a settlement between Hjalmar Riiser-Larsen, a Norwegian captain, and Sir Douglas Mawson, who led the British Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE), in January 1930. [8] [2]

The formal recognition of Australian annexation of the Australian Antarctic Territory by Norway[ clarification needed ] was obtained on 15 January 1939 when Norway informed Britain that the limits of Australian Antarctic Territory were accepted. [2]

Whaling disagreements

Australia and Norway are members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). [9] [10] Their views on the function of the IWC, however, are different. [10] Norway is on the pro-whaling side. [10] They maintain that the mission of the IWC is to achieve the whale stocks’ sustainability through regulation and management of whale hunting. [10] Australia is among the anti-whaling nations. [10] They hold the view that protecting and conserving the population of whales is the main purpose of the IWC. [10]

Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which laid the groundwork for the IWC, there is a provision that gives members of the IWC the right to file an objection so that the objectors can unilaterally set their own quotas for whaling and avoid having to comply with IWC's regulations and moratorium. [11] [12] [13]

Norway adopts a stance against the ban on whaling and advocates a resumption of commercial whaling. [14] Norway has made use of the mentioned article under the ICRW. [14] The country filed the objection to the moratorium in 1992 and resumed hunting whales for commercial purpose in 1994. [14] Today, Norway still maintains its commercial hunting of common minke and fin whales with self-set quotas, mainly in the North Atlantic and are under no obligation to comply with any regulations or prohibitions of the IWC. [12] [13]

On the other hand, Australia protests any form of whaling (commercial or researching purpose) in spite of the status of whales’ population or ICRW's purpose and maintains the position that there should be an immediate end to ‘scientific’ whaling and whaling ‘under objection or reservation’. [12] [13] Australia is also of the opinion that there is a need for rejuvenating the ICRW to eliminate the provision that enable the IWC's members to avoid being legally bounded by the IWC's rules, which is also the article that Norway is taking advantage of. [12]

Dispute over the freighter MV Tampa incident

Norway relied on the fact that Australian authorities requested for the rescue to claim that the responsibility for the Afghans rescued must be taken by Australia. [4] In response, Australia denied any obligation to allow entry for the rescued people arising from the conveying the mentioned request. [4] It was Australia's expectation that the determination of the refugees’ next destination, either back to where they were from or continue to the MV Tampa’s planned destination, be done by the government of Norway. [4]

‘Acrimonious’ public exchanges were made between Australia and Norway as a result of both countries’ continuing denials of responsibility. [4]

Norway asserted that the conditions of the refugees on the MV Tampa were critical and the possibility of life lost was high and therefore, the MV Tampa needed to port the Australian Territory of Christmas Island. [4] Australia, however, stated that the circumstance did not need any evacuation. [4] Accusation was made by the Australian Prime Minister at that time that the medical situation on the freighter Tampa was exaggerated by the captain. [4] The Prime Minister also said that nobody on the ship appeared to be in a medical emergency. [4]

On Norwegian public radio, the Norwegian Foreign Minister stated that if a ship was considered unsafe to sail by the captain, no country was allowed to force that ship to depart into international waters. [4] He also criticized the attitude of Australia was ‘unacceptable and inhuman’ and claimed that Australia's action was violating international law. [4] The Norwegian government stated that it was to contact the International Maritime Organization to inform it about the act of Australia. [4] Norway's response received criticism from the Australian Prime Minister. [4] He claimed that the Norwegian Government's attitude is to deny all responsibility in the incident even though the vessel, its captain, and its company are all Norwegian. [4]

Norway maintained its official view that the search and rescue was led by Australia in conformity Article 98 of UNCLOS and the MV Tampa was just a participant. [4] Australia pointed to the fact that it was within Indonesia's appointed sea area where the search and rescue took place. [4]

Australia defended its position that they were not required to let the Tampa reach the port of Christmas Island. [4] Norwegian authorities replied by arguing that the decision of the captain could not be disputed by Australia as it was not within the Australian government's rights to do so. [4] Even though the medical emergency was ambiguous, Norway asserted that the fact that the vessel was carrying 438 people when its maximum load was 40 people was adequate for the situation to be determined as distressed. [4] To counter this argument, Australia contended that it was Norway's business to ensure safety standards being met as Norway was the MV Tampa's flag's state. [4] Australia concluded that, therefore, Norway was responsible for the guarantee that the MV Tampa, after docking Christmas Island, would not leave the port without having first met all the safety requirements. [4]

Australia rejected the duty of receiving the immigrants, saying that it was not in compliance with Australian immigration laws to let the rescued entry Australia when the critical conditions leading to the rescue had ceased to exist. [4] In response, Norway's government insisted that Australia's rescue responsibilities were still remained given the then current situation. [4] To let the rescued be disembarked at the nearest port, which was the Christmas Island in that case, was one of Australia's responsibilities. [4] These responsibilities were also in compliance with humanitarian international standards that were widely recognized. [4]

Bilateral trade and investments

Trade

Monthly value of Norwegian merchandise exports to Australia (A$ millions) since 1988 ABS-5439.0-InternationalMerchandiseImportsAustralia-CountryCountryGroupsCustomsValue-Norway-A1829466T.svg
Monthly value of Norwegian merchandise exports to Australia (A$ millions) since 1988

During the period of 2015 to 2019, on average, Australia increased its exports of goods to Norway by more than 10 percent every year. [1]

Trade between Australia and Norway is also facilitated under the regulations of several general agreements and policies, including the Australia's pact with the European Economic Area (EEA), of which Norway is a member, and the agreements within the World Trade Organization (WTO). [15] [16] These agreements present all the conditions, importing taxes, and levies, for the trading of merchandises and services between the two countries. [16]

Values of goods imported and exported between Australia and Norway by year during the period 2015-2019, as reported by Australia. Data from OECD Stat Goods imports and exports between Australia and Norway. OECD.Stat data.jpg
Values of goods imported and exported between Australia and Norway by year during the period 2015-2019, as reported by Australia. Data from OECD Stat

Total merchandise in US dollar imported and exported from Australia in 2019 as reported by Norway are $253,685,000 and $191,090,000, respectively. [18]

Total merchandise in US dollar imported and exported from Norway in 2019 as reported by Australia are $347,321,000 and $157,026,000, respectively. [18]

Monthly value of Australian merchandise exports to Norway (A$ millions) since 1988 ABS-5368.0-InternationalTradeInGoodsServicesAustralia-MerchandiseExportsCountryCountryGroupsFobValue-Norway-A1829150W.svg
Monthly value of Australian merchandise exports to Norway (A$ millions) since 1988

The difference between import and export values (‘asymmetries’) in bilateral trade reported by any two countries is caused by several reasons. [19] Firstly, in gathering the statistics for import and export, various criteria of partner attribution are applied. [19] Secondly, in import statistics, CIF-type values are used; meanwhile, in export statistics, FOB-type values are used. [19] Lastly, in gathering data, various trade systems may be used. [19]

Australia's top three product categories imported from Norway, in order of monetary value, are: boats, ships, and floating structures; liquids pumps and parts; instruments for measuring and analyzing. [1] The top three types of goods exported to Norway by Australia, in order of monetary value, include: aluminum ores; pharmaceutical products; instruments for measuring and analyzing. [1]

In 2018, Australia was the 42nd largest import source of Norway with 0.25% of total import partner share, 30th largest export destination of Norway with 0.24% of total export partner share. [20] [21] Of the same period, Norway's rankings as import source and export destination of Australia were 52nd (0.15% of total import partner share) and 52nd (0.05% of total export partner share). [22] [23]

Investments

In 2019, the total of investments from one country to the other amounted to $35.5 billion AUD, of which Australia invested $10.2 billion to Norway and Norway invested $25.3 billion to Australia. [1]

Diplomatics relations

State visits

Agreements and arrangements between Australia and Norway

Australia and Norway have come under these specific agreements:

Other affiliations

The two countries work closely as parts of the Umbrella Group, a loosely organized negotiation group first established by, beside Australia and Norway, other developed countries that also depends on various types of fossil fuel. [25] The formation of the Umbrella group materialized right after the Kyoto Protocol was approved. [25]

During the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Australia and Norway are two of the three nations joining the Protocol's Annex B. [25] The countries in this Annex aims to obtain additional emissions allowed for 2008-2012, the earliest commitment period, through negotiation. [25] Australia and Norway conducted negotiations to increase eight per cent and one percent in emissions from the 1990 index, respectively. [25] After delaying for some time, Norway joined Australia for the agreement to commit to the Kyoto Protocol's subsequent commitment period. [25] The two countries also gave the flexibility mechanisms of the Protocol strong endorsement. [25]

Australia - Norway statistics

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling</span> International environmental agreement

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is an international environmental agreement aimed at the "proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". It governs the commercial, scientific, and aboriginal subsistence whaling practices of 88 member nations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whaling</span> Hunting of whales

Whaling is the hunting of whales for their usable products such as meat and blubber, which can be turned into a type of oil that was important in the Industrial Revolution. Whaling was practiced as an organized industry as early as 875 AD. By the 16th century, it had become the principal industry in the Basque coastal regions of Spain and France. The whaling industry spread throughout the world and became very profitable in terms of trade and resources. Some regions of the world's oceans, along the animals' migration routes, had a particularly dense whale population and became targets for large concentrations of whaling ships, and the industry continued to grow well into the 20th century. The depletion of some whale species to near extinction led to the banning of whaling in many countries by 1969 and to an international cessation of whaling as an industry in the late 1980s.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is a specialised regional fishery management organisation, established under the terms of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institute of Cetacean Research</span> Controversial Japanese whaling body that purports to be focused on research

The Institute of Cetacean Research is a research organization that claims to specialise in "biological and social sciences related to whales" but is widely believed to be a front for commercial whaling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal whaling</span> Hunting of whales by indigenous people

Aboriginal whaling or indigenous whaling is the hunting of whales by indigenous peoples recognised by either IWC or the hunting is considered as part of indigenous activity by the country. It is permitted under international regulation, but in some countries remains a contentious issue. It is usually considered part of the subsistence economy. In some places, whaling has been superseded by whale watching instead. This article deals with communities that continue to hunt; details about communities that have ended the practice may be found in History of whaling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whaling in Japan</span> Commercial hunting of whales by the Japanese fishing industry

Japanese whaling, in terms of active hunting of whales, is estimated by the Japan Whaling Association to have begun around the 12th century. However, Japanese whaling on an industrial scale began around the 1890s when Japan started to participate in the modern whaling industry, at that time an industry in which many countries participated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of whaling</span>

This article discusses the history of whaling from prehistoric times up to the commencement of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. Whaling has been an important subsistence and economic activity in multiple regions throughout human history. Commercial whaling dramatically reduced in importance during the 19th century due to the development of alternatives to whale oil for lighting, and the collapse in whale populations. Nevertheless, some nations continue to hunt whales even today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whaling in Australia</span> Industry

Whaling in Australian waters began in 1791 when five of the 11 ships in the Third Fleet landed their passengers and freight at Sydney Cove and then left Port Jackson to engage in whaling and seal hunting off the coast of Australia and New Zealand. The two main species hunted by such vessels in the early years were right and sperm whales. Humpback, bowhead and other whale species would later be taken.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whaling in Iceland</span>

Whaling in Iceland began with spear-drift hunting as early as the 12th century, and continued in a vestigial form until the late 19th century, when other countries introduced modern commercial practices. Today, Iceland is one of a handful of countries that formally object to an ongoing moratorium established by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, and that still maintain a whaling fleet. One company remains concentrated on hunting fin whales, largely for export to Japan, while the only other one previously hunted minke whales for domestic consumption until 2020, as the meat was popular with tourists. In 2018, Hvalur hf whalers killed a rare blue whale/fin whale hybrid.

Whaling in Norway involves hunting of minke whales for use as animal and human food in Norway and for export to Japan. Whale hunting has been a part of Norwegian coastal culture for centuries, and commercial operations targeting the minke whale have occurred since the early 20th century. Some still continue the practice in the modern day, within annual quotas.

<i>Nisshin Maru</i> Whaling factory ship of the Japanese whaling fleet

The Nisshin Maru (日新丸) was the primary vessel of the Japanese whaling fleet and was the world's only whaler factory ship. It was the research base ship for the Institute of Cetacean Research for 2002 to 2007. It had a tonnage of 8,145 GT and is the largest member and flagship of the five-ship whaling fleet, headed by leader Shigetoshi Nishiwaki. The ship was based in Japan in Shimonoseki harbor and was owned by Tokyo-based Kyodo Senpaku, which is a subsidiary of the Institute of Cetacean Research.

The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is an area of 50 million square kilometres surrounding the continent of Antarctica where the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has banned all types of commercial whaling. To date, the IWC has designated two such sanctuaries, the other being the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iceland–South Korea relations</span> Bilateral relations

Iceland–South Korea relations are primarily based on cooperation over maritime issues, such as whaling and bottom trawling, and on bilateral trade in technology and fish products. Diplomatic relations between Iceland and the Republic of Korea were established on October 10, 1962 according to the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs gives the date as 19 April 1982. Iceland's Embassy in Beijing is accredited to South Korea, and Iceland also has two honorary consulates in Seoul. South Korea's embassy in Oslo, Norway is accredited to Iceland, and South Korea has an honorary consulate in Reykjavík.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iceland–Norway relations</span> Bilateral relations

Iceland–Norway relations are foreign relations between Iceland and Norway. Iceland has an embassy in Oslo and Norway has an embassy in Reykjavík.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations</span> Direct action marine conservation operations

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society engages in various demonstrations, campaigns, and tactical operations at sea and elsewhere, including conventional protests and direct actions to protect marine wildlife. Sea Shepherd operations have included interdiction against commercial fishing, shark poaching and finning, seal hunting and whaling. Many of their activities have been called piracy or terrorism by their targets and by the ICRW. Sea Shepherd says that they have taken more than 4,000 volunteers on operations over a period of 30 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whale conservation</span> Conservation of whales

Whale conservation refers to the conservation of whales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-whaling</span>

Anti-whaling refers to actions taken by those who seek to end whaling in various forms, whether locally or globally in the pursuit of marine conservation. Such activism is often a response to specific conflicts with pro-whaling countries and organizations that practice commercial whaling and/or research whaling, as well as with indigenous groups engaged in subsistence whaling. Some anti-whaling factions have received criticism and legal action for extreme methods including violent direct action. The term anti-whaling may also be used to describe beliefs and activities related to these actions.

Since the end of apartheid, foreign trade in South Africa has increased, following the lifting of several sanctions and boycotts which were imposed as a means of ending apartheid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whaling in the United Kingdom</span> Industry

Commercial whaling in Britain began late in the 16th century and continued after the 1801 formation of the United Kingdom and intermittently until the middle of the 20th century.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. "Norway country brief". Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Archived from the original on 16 March 2020.
  2. 1 2 3 Barrett, Noel D. (2009). "Norway and the 'winning' of Australian Antarctica". Polar Record. 45 (4): 360–367. doi:10.1017/S0032247409008328. ISSN   0032-2474. S2CID   145127481.
  3. 1 2 National Research Council (U.S.) Polar Research Board (1986). Antarctic treaty system: an assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. p. 370. ISBN   978-0-309-03640-5.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Willheim, E. (1 April 2003). "MV Tampa: The Australian Response". International Journal of Refugee Law. 15 (2): 159–191. doi:10.1093/ijrl/15.2.159. ISSN   0953-8186.
  5. ↑ "Australian Consulate in Oslo, Norway - Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade". dfat.gov.au. Archived from the original on 10 March 2015.
  6. ↑ Newell, Matthew (2012). "The laws of whaling : Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2008) FCA 3 (15 January 2008)". Southern Cross University Law Review. 15 (15): 87–97.
  7. ↑ "An honorable way out of the whaling debacle". The Sydney Morning Herald. 19 January 2008. Retrieved 26 May 2021.
  8. 1 2 3 Headland, Robert Keith (2 April 2020). "Territory and Claims in the Antarctic Treaty Region: A Disquisition on Historical and Recent Developments". The Cartographic Journal. 57 (2): 160–174. doi:10.1080/00087041.2019.1677035. ISSN   0008-7041. S2CID   213035160.
  9. ↑ International Whaling Commission (2021). "Membership and Contracting Governments". International Whaling Commission. Archived from the original on 28 January 2013.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Depledge, Joanna (2005). "IWC/57th AM - Continuing stalemate". Environmental Policy and Law. 35: 166.
  11. ↑ International Whaling Commission (2021). "IWC Key Documents". International Whaling Commission. Archived from the original on 18 January 2013.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Goodman, Dan (2011). "The "Future of the IWC": Why the Initiative to Save the International Whaling Commission Failed". Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy. 14 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1080/13880292.2011.557939. ISSN   1388-0292.
  13. 1 2 3 Tarzia, Marguerite; McCormick, Bill (2010). "International whaling". Parliamentary Library Briefing Book Key Issues for the 43rd Parliament. Canberra: Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament House. p. 64.
  14. 1 2 3 Kolmaš, Michal (4 March 2021). "International pressure and Japanese withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission: when shaming fails". Australian Journal of International Affairs. 75 (2): 197–216. doi:10.1080/10357718.2020.1799936. ISSN   1035-7718. S2CID   225415299.
  15. ↑ Government Digital Service. "Countries in the EU and EEA". GOV.UK. Archived from the original on 5 March 2014.
  16. 1 2 Australian Trade and Investment Commission (2021). "Export markets - Norway". Australian Trade and Investment Commission. Archived from the original on 20 September 2015.
  17. ↑ OECD.Stat (2021). "BTDIxE Bilateral Trade in Goods by Industry and End-use, ISIC Rev.4". OECD.Stat. Archived from the original on 23 July 2014.
  18. 1 2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. "Bilateral Trade in Goods by Industry and End-use". OECD Statistics. Archived from the original on 23 July 2014.
  19. 1 2 3 4 United Nations. "Bilateral asymmetries". United Nations International Trade Statistics Knowledgebase. Archived from the original on 10 May 2016.
  20. ↑ World Bank (2018). "Norway Import Partner Share by country in percentage 2018-2018". World Bank: World Integrated Trade Solution. Archived from the original on 18 May 2021.
  21. ↑ World Bank (2018). "Norway Export Partner Share by country in percentage 2018-2018". World Bank: World Integrated Trade Solution. Archived from the original on 18 May 2021.
  22. ↑ World Bank (2018). "Australia Import Partner Share by country in percentage 2018-2018". World Bank: World Integrated Trade Solution. Archived from the original on 18 May 2021.
  23. ↑ World Bank (2018). "Australia Export Partner Share by country in percentage 2018-2018". World Bank: World integrated Trade Solution. Archived from the original on 18 May 2021.
  24. ↑ Belot, Henry (22 February 2015). "Norwegian royalty touch down in Canberra". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eckersley, Robyn (2013). "Poles Apart?: The Social Construction of Responsibility for Climate Change in Australia and Norway". Australian Journal of Politics & History. 59 (3): 382–396. doi:10.1111/ajph.12022. hdl: 11343/260525 .
  26. ↑ Statistics Norway (2021). "05196: Population, by citizenship, contents and year". Statistics Norway.
  27. ↑ Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021). "Migration, Australia". Australian Bureau of Statistics. Archived from the original on 28 September 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.