Diplomatic Analysis: Maintaining treaty obligations in the Nordics strengthens stability despite evolving security concerns.
This analysis examines the debate surrounding the future of demilitarized zones in the Nordic region – specifically the Svalbard archipelago and the Åland Islands – in the context of increased geopolitical tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the NATO accession of Finland and Sweden. The long-standing treaties governing these areas are facing renewed scrutiny, with arguments for revision based on shifting strategic realities and a perceived erosion of the rules-based international order. This piece assesses the military, diplomatic, and normative implications of upholding or abandoning these agreements, ultimately arguing for their preservation.
Historical Context
The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 arose from a need to regulate access to the archipelago’s coal resources after it was deemed terra nullius. While granting Norway sovereignty, the treaty also afforded nationals of over 40 signatory states extensive economic rights, specifically prohibiting military fortifications or “warlike” activities. The Åland Islands, historically Swedish, were transferred to Russia in 1809 before becoming part of Finland. Following the Crimean War in 1856, Russia was prohibited from fortifying the islands. A 1921 League of Nations resolution affirmed Finnish sovereignty over Åland, coupled with a convention explicitly demilitarizing the region to address Swedish concerns regarding self-determination and cultural rights for the Swedish-speaking population.
Both treaties emerged from a post-World War I desire to prioritize international law and arbitration over force in resolving disputes. While World War II challenged this ideal, the treaties themselves survived. Today, Russia’s actions in Ukraine and a perceived weakening of international norms are driving a reassessment of their continuing relevance.
Key Actors & Positions
Norway is central to the Svalbard debate, balancing its sovereign rights with the treaty’s limitations. While recognising the strategic significance of Svalbard, particularly vis-à-vis Russia’s Northern Fleet, Oslo has historically upheld the treaty’s demilitarization provisions. However, concerns about Russian activity in the area are growing.
Finland holds the primary position regarding the Åland Islands. Despite its NATO membership, Helsinki officially maintains its commitment to the demilitarization convention. Public opinion is more divided, with some advocating for increased military presence, but the government largely prioritizes adherence to the existing framework.
Russia benefits from the status quo on both fronts. In Svalbard, it maintains a presence in Barentsburg, exploiting the treaty’s provisions to pursue economic and political interests. In Åland, the Russian consulate continues to oversee compliance with the convention, offering a potential point of leverage.
NATO’s position is nuanced. While it acknowledges the strategic importance of the Nordic region, it has, to date, largely deferred to the sovereign decisions of Norway and Finland regarding these specific treaties. However, the accession of Finland and Sweden inherently alters the security landscape, placing renewed emphasis on these areas.
Analysis
The military benefits of overturning the treaty restrictions are relatively marginal. Enhancing Norwegian capabilities around Svalbard can largely be replicated from mainland positions, and the Åland Islands offer limited strategic gains given Russia’s existing military capabilities in the Baltic Sea. Conversely, abandoning these treaties would carry substantial diplomatic and normative costs. It would provide Russia with a propaganda victory, demonstrating a weakening of the rules-based order. It would also antagonize numerous treaty signatories and potentially undermine Norway and Finland’s reputations for adhering to international law – a valuable asset for smaller states relying on international legitimacy.
Furthermore, the argument that the international order is collapsing is overstated. While challenged, the system persists – demonstrated by ongoing diplomatic efforts and the collective response to Russia’s aggression. A unilateral breach of treaty obligations by Norway or Finland would reinforce the narrative of a declining order, potentially encouraging further violations.
In the specific case of Åland, the local population largely supports the existing demilitarized status, highlighting the importance of considering internal perspectives. Importantly, the 1921 Convention allows for emergency defensive measures, providing Finland with limited flexibility if the neutrality of the islands were threatened.
Outlook
The most likely scenario is a continuation of the current situation. Norway and Finland are likely to maintain their adherence to the Svalbard Treaty and the Åland Convention, albeit with increased vigilance and a strengthening of their overall defense capabilities in surrounding regions. NATO will likely continue to support this approach, respecting the sovereignty of both nations while enhancing its collective security posture in the Nordic-Baltic area.
While pressures for revision may persist, the diplomatic and strategic costs of abandoning these treaties currently outweigh the limited military gains. Maintaining the status quo preserves a degree of stability in a fragile security environment and reaffirms a commitment to international law, even as that law faces unprecedented challenges. The key will be to balance upholding treaty obligations with proactive measures to deter aggression and safeguard national interests.
Sources:
Peifer, Douglas. “Why Norway and Finland Should Preserve Two of Europe’s Most Important Demilitarized Zones.” War on the Rocks, 27 July 2026. [https://warontherocks.com/2026/07/why-norway-and-finland-should-preserve-two-of-europes-most-important-demilitarized-zones/](https://warontherocks.com/2026/07/why-norway-and-finland-should-preserve-two-of-europes-most-important-demilitarized-zones/)
Østhagen, Andreas. “The Myths of Svalbard Geopolitics.” High North News, 2024.
Gardberg, Anders. Ålandsöarna i strategisk belysning. [Åland Islands in strategic illumination]. Swedish Defence Research Agency, 1995.
Finnish Government. Report on Finnish Foreign and Security Policy. 2024.
Finnish Government. Report on Changes in the Foreign and Security Policy Environment. April 2026.
Baudu, Pauline. “Svalbard’s Grey Zone and the Future of Arctic Security.” SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security, 2023.
