---
title: "How Norway was able to arrest a Russian state-owned ship in Svalbard"
id: "90465"
type: "post"
slug: "how-norway-was-able-to-arrest-a-russian-state-owned-ship-in-svalbard"
published_at: "2026-10-07T22:06:03+00:00"
modified_at: "2026-10-07T22:06:05+00:00"
url: "https://estonianworld.com/security/how-norway-was-able-to-arrest-a-russian-state-owned-ship-in-svalbard/"
markdown_url: "https://estonianworld.com/security/how-norway-was-able-to-arrest-a-russian-state-owned-ship-in-svalbard.md"
excerpt: "Norway’s arrest of the Russian state-owned vessel Professor Molchanov in Svalbard raises a question of direct relevance to Estonia and its Baltic neighbours: could they […]"
taxonomy_category:
  - "Security"
publisher: "Estonian World"
language: "en-GB"
author: "Marcello zur Mühlen"
author_url: "https://estonianworld.com/author/marcello-zur-muhlen/"
---

# How Norway was able to arrest a Russian state-owned ship in Svalbard

![The Russian state-owned vessel Professor Molchanov, arrested by Norwegian authorities in Svalbard on 2 September 2026. Photo: Naftogaz.](https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Professor-Molchanov-1024x614.jpg)

The Russian state-owned vessel Professor Molchanov, arrested by Norwegian authorities in Svalbard on 2 September 2026. Photo: Naftogaz.

By  [Marcello zur Mühlen](https://estonianworld.com/author/marcello-zur-muhlen/)
  ·  October 7, 2026  · [Security](https://estonianworld.com/category/security/)
 · 5 minutes of reading

### Norway’s arrest of the Russian state-owned vessel Professor Molchanov in Svalbard raises a question of direct relevance to Estonia and its Baltic neighbours: could they legally take similar action closer to home? Marcello zur Mühlen examines the limits of coastal-state power.

On 2 September, the Norwegian authorities seized the Russian state-owned vessel Professor Molchanov at the port of Barentsburg in Svalbard.

The action followed an order issued by the Nord-Troms and Senja District Court at the request of Ukraine’s state energy company, Naftogaz. In maritime law, this kind of detention is known as the arrest of a ship.

Naftogaz is seeking to enforce a USD4.22 billion arbitration award against Russia over energy assets expropriated following the country’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Russia has refused to pay the award, which has already been recognised as enforceable in Norway.

But how can a Norwegian court order the arrest of property owned by another state?

### When can state property be seized?

States generally enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts. Their property is also protected against enforcement measures such as attachment, arrest or seizure.

These are separate questions. A court’s authority to recognise a claim against a foreign state does not necessarily mean that it may seize the state’s property to enforce that claim.

Article 5 of the [United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property](https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/4_1_2004.pdf)
 sets out the general principle that a state and its property enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of another state’s courts.

Norway ratified the convention in 2006, although it has not yet entered into force internationally. Nevertheless, it provides an important framework for the restrictive approach to state immunity, under which commercial state assets receive less protection than property used for sovereign purposes.

Article 19 of the convention deals specifically with the enforcement of judgments against state property. It permits measures such as arrest or seizure if the property is being used, or is intended to be used, for purposes other than non-commercial government service. The property must also be within the territory of the state whose court is considering the case and have a connection with the entity against which the proceedings were brought.

[https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Barentsberg_quay.jpg](https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Barentsberg_quay.jpg)

Professor Molchanov at Barentsburg. Photo by Alastair Rae, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

The nature of the ship’s use is therefore crucial. Naftogaz says the Professor Molchanov is used for commercial expedition cruises, including voyages to Svalbard. If the vessel were used solely for non-commercial government purposes, it could benefit from immunity and Norwegian courts might not be able to seize it.

State ownership alone does not settle the question. What matters is how the asset is used or intended to be used.

### Who has jurisdiction in Svalbard?

The second question concerns the location of the vessel.

Svalbard is part of the Kingdom of Norway, but the archipelago has a special status under the 1920 Svalbard Treaty. The treaty grants nationals and companies from its signatory states, including Russia, equal rights in certain areas such as access, fishing, mining and commercial activity.

Those rights do not amount to shared sovereignty. The treaty expressly recognises Norway’s “full and absolute sovereignty” over Svalbard. Norwegian authorities have the exclusive power to enact and enforce laws there, subject to the limitations established by the treaty.

[https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/BarentsburgFromDock-scaled.jpg](https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/BarentsburgFromDock-scaled.jpg)

The dock house in Barentsburg, a Russian coal-mining settlement on Norway’s Svalbard archipelago. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Russian citizens and companies operating in Svalbard must therefore comply with Norwegian law, just like their Norwegian counterparts. The treaty does not, by itself, remove the jurisdiction of Norwegian courts or provide Russian state property with a blanket exemption from judicial enforcement.

Norwegian procedural and enforcement law consequently applies, alongside the relevant rules of international law. The Nord-Troms and Senja District Court issued the order, while the Governor of Svalbard, acting as the local enforcement authority, was responsible for preventing the ship from leaving Barentsburg.

### Why does the ship’s location matter?

International maritime law distinguishes between internal waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and the high seas.

A coastal state exercises sovereignty over its internal waters and territorial sea, which generally extends up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. Its authority in an exclusive economic zone, which may extend up to 200 nautical miles, is much more limited and principally concerns natural resources, environmental protection and certain economic activities.

[https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Screenshot_8-10-2026_03229_www.bing_.com_.jpeg](https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Screenshot_8-10-2026_03229_www.bing_.com_.jpeg)

Svalbard lies in the Arctic Ocean, north of mainland Norway, between the Greenland Sea and the Barents Sea. Map: Bing Maps.

The Professor Molchanov was arrested while in port at Barentsburg. It was therefore not merely passing through Norway’s exclusive economic zone or exercising its right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

Under Article 28 of the [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea](https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf)
, a coastal state should not ordinarily stop or divert a foreign vessel passing through its territorial sea simply to exercise civil jurisdiction. The convention does, however, preserve a state’s right, in accordance with its domestic law, to arrest a foreign ship lying in its territorial sea or passing through after leaving its internal waters.

The fact that the ship was in Barentsburg therefore placed it firmly within Norwegian jurisdiction. The remaining question was whether its Russian state ownership gave it immunity from enforcement.

### Could the Baltic Sea states do the same?

The Baltic Sea is entirely covered by the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of its coastal states. There is no area beyond these national maritime zones that would constitute the high seas.

That does not mean, however, that coastal states possess the same enforcement powers throughout the Baltics.

A state could not normally arrest a Russian vessel merely because it was passing through its exclusive economic zone. International law gives coastal states certain enforcement powers there, including in relation to fisheries and environmental regulations, but not a general right to seize vessels in order to enforce unrelated compensation claims.

If a Russian state-owned vessel entered a Baltic port, internal waters or, under certain circumstances, the territorial sea, an arrest might be legally possible. It would still depend on whether the award had been recognised under domestic law, whether the state’s procedural rules permitted enforcement and whether the vessel was protected by state immunity.

The Norwegian case therefore does not give European coastal states a general licence to seize Russian ships. Instead, it illustrates the narrow set of circumstances in which an arrest may be possible: an enforceable award, state property used for commercial purposes, a vessel within the enforcing state’s jurisdiction and a domestic court prepared to authorise the measure.

## About The Author

![Marcello zur Mühlen.](https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/cropped-Photo-100x100.png)

[Marcello zur Mühlen](https://estonianworld.com/author/marcello-zur-muhlen/)
Marcello zur Mühlen is a policy adviser specialising in tax law. He studied law in Germany and Norway, with a particular focus on maritime law.