|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
152464
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the Spitsbergen treaty of 1920, Norway acquired sovereignty over the Spitsbergen Islands. Rather than Woodrow Wilson, the American president, the architects behind the treaty were Robert Lansing, Wilson’s secretary of state, and, behind the diplomatic scene, the mining investor, John M. Longyear. In 1906, Longyear established a mining company to exploit the coal deposits at Spitsbergen. He induced Congress, the State Department, and the White House to forge an American policy for the European Arctic, including the appointment of Lansing, an international lawyer, as a counsel in the State Department. Lansing was a leading expert on both international law and the lack of state authority at the terra nullius, Spitsbergen. In 1915, he became secretary of State and, at the Paris Peace Conference, decided American policy regarding the Spitsbergen question. This analysis shows how the outcome of the Spitsbergen question was a result of American mining interests, supplemented by Norwegian-American shared interests in conflict resolution based on international law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
170986
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the Norwegian-Swedish Union, Norway had home rule; the Swedish foreign minister conducted its foreign relations. This fact created the impression that Norway ‘played second fiddle’ in forging its relations with foreign Powers. This analysis contends that the organisation of the apparatus for policy-making secured Norwegian influence and interests in the Union’s foreign politics. It uses ‘concertmaster’ as an alternative metaphor to sum up the role of the Norwegian government in the king’s Norwegian foreign politics during the Union period. Whilst the king of Norway and Sweden’s authority dwindled as politicians in both countries limited royal powers and strengthened those of the Parliaments, the impression of Norway as the foreign political loser increased. In the context of growing European nationalism in the 1890s, the impression of Norway playing second fiddle shored up the radical opposition against the unpopular Union and led to its dissolution in 1905.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|