Tom Christiansen: Russian coffin us, they deprive us of the means of subsistence: Russian-Norwegian business on the north to the Last 1820

Tom Christiansen: "Russian destroy us, they deprive us of the means of subsistence": Russian-Norwegian relations in the Far North to 1820

Tom Christiansen: "Russian coffin us, they deprive us of the means of subsistence."

North as a challenge and a source of friction

Why are the vast, barren and largely uninhabited border area between Russia and Norway on the Late North is a prerequisite of conflict in the pre-nationalist period of history, in the late XVIII and early decades of the XIX century.? And why is our homeland declining to resolve these conflicts? In the end, a poor and small Norway regained its statehood only in 1814, was unable to compete with the mighty Russian Empire. In the end, one may wonder about, is not the conflicts of the era heralds of the challenges that face the region today.

This article attempts to analyze the relationship between Russia and Norway in the almost unpopulated region on the last northern periphery of Europe, for which the first characteristic of enormous size, very rare population, and only the terrible weather conditions. On the other hand, over time, a growing awareness that the region is full of natural resources such as fish, minerals and marine animals — not to mention the oil and gas discovered in the recent era. The fixed population of the Murmansk coast — from Grense Jakobselv in the north-east of Norway to Cape Saint Nose at the entrance to the snow-white sea — was at that time the least hundreds of families. This period in the history of the last northern hardly attracts attention to itself for Russian and Norwegian historians, despite frequent conflicts over borders and natural resources, which are often marred relations between the two countries in the past 2-centuries. But it should be emphasized that these conflicts have never led to a much-or harsh confrontation. Some of the disputes concerning borders, natural resources and jurisdictional issues continued to be a source of disagreement and noticeable after the second World War. But they got hold of a multilateral and international nuance, it is not characteristic of the era from the beginning of the XIX century. to the inter-war period.

In this article, be subject to the consideration of the four main themes. In 1-x, is the outstanding issues related to the land and maritime boundary, in-2, the problem nedavneshnih Russian settlements in the Norwegian countryside in the far eastern Finnmark, in-3, the conflicts between the Russian and Norwegian citizens about fishing fisheries off the coast of Finnmark, and, in the end, coastal trade, which is a variety of classical barter trade between the Russian-Pomerania and residents of northern Norway. 400-year union with Denmark over Norway in 1814 to give Norway's sovereignty and liberal constitution. But as Denmark and Norway were on the side of the losers in the Napoleonic wars, Norway was forced into the union with Sweden under the Kiel treaty between Denmark and Sweden, signed in January 1814 Terms of Union were discussed in Mosskoy Convention between Norway and Sweden, concluded in October of the same year. According to the Scandinavian union, which existed until 1905, the Swedish master was once lord of Norway, and in addition, to the jurisdiction of Sweden withdrew all the external relations of the two countries. In all other respects, Norway retained its own municipal institutions. In 1809, Our homeland and Norway became neighbors as a result of the fact that Sweden ceded by treaty of the Russian Federation Hamina Finland. Despite this painful loss, the Crown Prince Carl Johan (ruler from 1818) to the conciliatory policy of the Russian Federation adhered to: there is a perception that specifically she allowed Norway to pursue a policy of territorial consolidation on the Late North. The end of this step in the Swedish policy towards the Russian Federation put the Crimean War (1854-1856). Early XIX century. in the vicinity of Pasvik Neiden and Pace, made up the border area between Russia and Norway, in fact there was no Norwegian population. But only in nedavneshnee, historians have begun to pay their attention to the fact that the Russian and Norwegian expansion took place not at the no-man's land. Because conflict affects not only the two countries, and the three ethnic groups — the Norwegians, Russian and Sami. Vulnerability of indigenous Sami culture was justified by the fact that a broad area of the border districts there were only a very few of the community. For example, surrounded Neiden at the end of the XVIII century. population of at least 2-3 families. Specifically, the usual style of life of coastal Sami most suffered from bred Russian and Norwegian fishing industries and trading companies. With all of this above-mentioned topics not found a much-or perceptible reflection in Norwegian historiography and discussions on relations with Russia. The central place in the Swedish and Norwegian discourse since the mid XIX century. take over the horrors of the "subconscious pull of the Russian Federation to the seas" to the creation of an ice-free port. Such a desire for expansion is seen as a logical continuation of the growth of Russian Empire in XVII-XIX centuries. Although it has expanded priemuschestvenno to the south and east, it was thought that a similar expansion should be expected in the north-west direction because of the need of in the ice-free port for easy access to the northern Atlantic. This article is based on the assumption that the relationship between Norway and Russia in the north in the early XIX century. and later (actually saying, right before the Bolshevik Revolution) should be taught from a different point of view, if the prospect of policy, grand strategy and diplomacy, which has long since become the standard in scientific research papers and public discussions. In almost all respects, the issue before us can be regarded as the first stages of macro-historical process that lasts to this day — and specifically, the expansion in the Arctic and its territorial demarcation. Einar Niemi proposed to put in the base periods of the history of the Last of the North in the years 1800-1940. Questions "nation-building and its needs." In addition, the period of 1814-1917 years. characterized as a "rush interaction 2-adjacent nations [Russian Federation and Norway] on the banks of the Arctic Ocean." As noted above, in this article we will cover at least the study period, ie, the clearance between about 1800 and 1820. Niemi emphasizes that the roots of the idea of "Russian danger" sprout first specifically to this period. But nation-building and needs to be seen as a response to the challenge facing our state. Because our focus will be local economic, legal and social conditions that fueled the idea of danger, and does not prevail in Stockholm and Christiania horrors before the "grand strategy" of the Russian Federation, plotting expansion in the north. In general, Jens Petter Nilsen, possibly right in saying that the "idea" of the Russian danger "Turns historians trivial impasse."

The researchers demonstrated that the horrors of the Norwegians to Russia in fact based on a fabricated myth. John Rice Crowe, English Consul-General in the small northern town of Hammerfest in their own reports of the 1830s. tried to convince the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in the assault on the Finnmark. While Crowe was probably well awa
re of the local conflicts between Norwegian and Russian, and on that basis made a decisive conclusion that the cause of conflict is in the royal expansionism. During the Crimean War, the idea of Crowe received the formal approval of the Minister of Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston and found the expression in Novembre 1855 agreement, under which France and England took over the defense Scandinavian-tion of the union of the Russian invasion in exchange for a promise from Sweden and Norway not to give any land to the Russian Tsar. Expansion in the Late North, ongoing efforts and Russian, and Norwegian nationals, created numerous points of contact between them. Although these contacts and friction never led to armed conflict, nor to severe disagreements between the governments of Norway and the Russian Federation, in some local communities again and again they were perceived as a threat. Because it can be assumed that the researchers strongly denying the point of view of Crowe, tend to forget that he was perfectly aware of the local situation in the Late North. The naval expedition in Finnmark, organized by the Norwegian authorities in the years 1816-1818. Indicate that the threat was felt even in 20 years to alarming reports Crowe, although this risk beheld quite different.

Historiography of the Russian-Norwegian relations on the Late North

Norwegian historiography of the era, particularly subsequent to the year 1814, is dedicated to those priemuschestvenno basic challenges faced by the government just made — namely, the constitutional consolidation and the need to fix quite frustrated municipal money. Most first steps of Norway in foreign policy and the protection of the public interest on the Late north almost to himself lured to the attention of researchers. There is no general nature of work, covering the Russian-Norwegian relations in this part of the country in the first decade of the XIX century. In his book about the role of the Russian Union in foreign policy of Norway Egil Danielsen mention of border conflicts of the 1820s., Which put an end to a contract in 1826 on the border and the Additional Protocol of 1834 to the work of the Koryo Selnæs stories about Russian-Norwegian relations are considered only trade agreements concluded between the two countries-name in that era. The creators of these works do not pay attention to any maritime boundary disputes, or actions undertaken by the Norwegians for their own power, no illegal settlements, no conflicts over fisheries. Accordingly, in general, these publications are designed in a very positive way …

There are several research papers, which examines individual nuances of the Norwegian-Russian relations on the Late North, namely, it is devoted to the local historical literature of the northern provinces. But in regard we are considering all of them so well can only give a fragmentary picture. The issue of the land border has been exhaustively covered in the book published in 1920 by the influential work of Oscar Albert Johnsen about the political history of the Finnmark … In this book, written by order of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, examined the period from "ancient times and era sagas" before signing on the border in 1826, Johnsen leads thorough review of the causes, affect the amount of taxes, the passage of the land borders and the means of livelihood of the local population but harsh analysis of the relationship between Norway and Russia in his work is absent. Contract 1826 on the border is not the subject of how much-or substantive discussion in the Norwegian historiography — probably because in the coming did not become a source of significant conflict. First, the contract has been criticized by Russia and Finland. Johnsen strongly denies that the contract in 1826 Norway became more of what she has had the historical right to claim, as they say, Russian and Finnish. On the contrary, according to Johnsen, Norway's side showed great moderation in view of the fears that create behavior in the Russian border area — fears that are based on the belief that our motherland wants to reject these areas … Johnsen says exactly what the Norwegians — soon after Sweden was obliged to cede Finland — have initiated the process that led to the conclusion of the contract in 1826 By the time the Copenhagen government has prepared a report that can be made to deal with neuvvyazkami that are Russian citizens. But from this trial to engage in dialogue with Russia did not. Astri Andresen, studying the history of the Eastern Sami, comes to the conclusion that not all of the nuances of the contract in 1826 were studied. From the perspective of the Sami was the main problem of communication between the state border and the Saami customary law on fisheries in the border area, so called "SEED". But, fully understood that neither the Norwegian nor the Russian government during the negotiation process does not take into account the interests of the Sami.

Oscar Albert Johnsen was the first Norwegian historian, who drew attention to several ambiguities in the development of the Norwegian-Russian relations in the early XIX century. The premise of these tensions, but the acts were Russian citizens, and not the royal policy. The population of Finnmark constantly complained about the Danish-Norwegian authorities on the Russian. According to these complaints, says Johnsen, Russian fished in Norwegian waters, collected fin, bird's eggs and down, robbing the local population, and more than that resorted to violence, even against officials. The Russian historian Konstantin CHudinov also exposes the issue for consideration of the Russian-Norwegian border settlement. It shows that the conciliatory policies of Karl Johans Gate in relations between Russia and the trade agreement in 1817 revived the commercial links between the Russian-Pomerania and Norwegians. CHudinov considering the border from the standpoint of officials of both countries and, in his opinion, the contract in 1826 and the corresponding section of the disputed districts did not lead to any conflicts between neighboring countries. But Astri Andresen in a footnote to the article Chudinova argues that the context in which a contract is on the border, so far remained largely unexplored. It shows that the relationship between the various ethnic groups in the border area have been strained, while Chudinov, tracking the official point of view, does not deal with local tensions between Russian and Norwegian nationals. According to Andresen and Johnsen, perhaps specifically, these conflicts have led to the creation in 1826 of the Boundary Commission. Andresen stresses that existing situation worse just had to eastern Sami. Background of the territorial waters, especially in its most part of early, also has not been any in-depth analysis with historical or legal point of view. Despite the fact that the maritime border was actually crucial for the Norwegian coastal communities, the historical nuance of the issue so far not lured to discover the attention of researchers. Beginning in 1860 and right up to the verdict in the 1951 international tribunal in The Hague — where England last of the powers recognized the four mile maritime border Norway — that was an object of constant disputes between Norway and other countries. Norway has proved its claims of historical and legal precedents XVIII and XIX centuries., Arguing that the contours of its coastline (including fjords and archipelagos rather wide aqua spaces bounded by the islands), such course of the maritime boundary, which would guarantee the local population is fully dependent on fishing livelihoods. Accordingly, the question of the extent of territorial waters is always listed as a principal for the relevant country. So Makar, the historical argument were frequently politicized and programmatic character. Most of the Norwegian historians and lawyers have long shared became the official standard-ing the view that in the XVIII century the practice has been to li
mit the territorial waters of Four Mile strip, taciturn approved by all the States concerned, and that the government's memorandum in 1812 should be seen as the first attempt to legislate the practice . Special contribution to the clarification of this point of view have brought two researchers — Dr. Arnold Restad law and an expert on Law of the Sea Captain Christopher Meyer. Arnold Restada book "Imperial water" (Kongens Stromme) in 1912 to this day is considered a landmark work in this area. Restad indicates that the Danish-Norwegian authorities have practically declared the passage of the maritime boundary is 4 miles from the coast only in times of armed neutrality. From this Restad concludes that such a limit was considered the minimum necessary in time of war as in peace-time ruler claimed to own the right to all the water spots that have long been exploited by Norwegian nationals of Norway — the so-called "royal water." Restada work inspired by Christopher Meyer on careful study of the political and legal history of territorial waters. Thus was born the magnum opus Meyer — gained international recognition in 1937 monograph "The limits of the jurisdiction of the coastal waters." Meyer Restada goes even further, claiming that the Norwegian authorities have full jurisdiction over fishing grounds, which are usually developed by the Norwegians — in other words, lying far beyond the four mile zone.

Swedish historian Salomon Kraft wrote a detailed study of the Pomeranian trade in northern Norway in the first half of the XIX century. In the presentation of Kraft trade contacts between these remote regions of Norway and Russia have developed a natural way, to please the needs of the population. In Kraft's nothing to show that the central Russian government played an important role in the development of this trade. Jens Petter Nilsen noticed existing in both countries tend to almost idyllic description of the relations between the Russian and Norwegian until 1917, especially in the local historiography. Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, even claimed that the cool war is an exception to the thousand-year history of peaceful and good-neighborly relations between the countries, with 2 … But such a view of problem to prove a link to any sources. On the contrary, research shows that continuing conflicts in the North of the Last place for a long time until the middle of the XIX century. the myth of the "Russian danger." Hyperbole, heard from the lips of the Prime Minister is likely explained shown after the end of the war, Cool hope for an early normalization of relations between Russia and Norway, broken at the local level after the revolution of 1917 Moreover, the Prime Minister sought to form new principles of multilateral cooperation in the Barents Sea. Given this, it is hardly surprising that most historians are paying less attention to the problematic nuance of the Russian-Norwegian relations — Pomeranian trade.

Contemporaries

The relationship between the Russian and Norwegian North on Last devoted three tough job, penned by specific witnesses. The first of them — the commission's report of Dr. Jon Eriksen, placed in 1772 ("Reflections on the claim of intentional Russian Lapland and other issues"). Eriksen has argued that the lack of state borders on the Late North is a prerequisite for conflict and that such a state of things can settle Russian coast of Finnmark. He believed that we should do away with the status of the general county Neiden Pasvik and Pacey as usum communem, agreeing on their section. Moreover, he believed that the problems arising in Finnmark are generated by the first presence of fisheries that have appeared in the 1740s. Russian economic activity created "a kind servitus realis on these Crown lands to His Majesty," and Eriksen was afraid that in the long run, this situation will lead to new Russian claims. But the historical right to fish on the Russian coast of Finnmark was recognized Swedish-Norwegian authorities in a commercial treaty in 1838 Eriksen stressed that the issue of the border should be solved as soon as possible. He also pointed out that Norway IME-etsya more historical grounds to claim this land as the Russian Tsar. Since Eriksen wrote its own report for a long time before Sweden ceded Finland to the Russian Federation, its proposal clearly shows that the premise of conflict served as economic development, and not the new municipal boundaries, carried out in the course of and as a result of the Napoleonic Wars … Second of these certificates — Jens Rathke report, filed in 1805 in the College of Commerce … In the 1800-1802 years. Rathke made several trips along the northern coast of Norway and the Russian Federation, including the study of fisheries. It draws a picture of the Russian economic activities, in Finnmark, which included fishing and trade. According to him, Russia's use more advanced methods of catching fish than the ones that were in use at the local Norwegian and Sami. Moreover, the fishing season in Russian more extended. As a result, they do risk the classic style of life of Norwegians and the Sami. In addition, the growth of Rathke said Russian settlements in eastern Finnmark and referred to the complaints of local residents. Overall economic activity Rathke describes Russian virtually the same words, which for 30 years before he resorted Eriksen. His story gives an idea of how the region penetrated new ways of fishing and trade. But Rathke also did not believe that this expansion is carried out on the orders of the central Russian government. The third and most vivid description written by Leopold von Buch. Like the two previous authors, he was also a scholar who traveled to the northern territories of Norway and Russia. In the same vein as the Rathke, von Buch describes how the Russian hit the west by its own remarkable enterprise and energy, but also notes that the Norwegian population has fallen into complete dependence on imports of grain from Russia. In their own observations and conclusions he mostly repeats Rathke. According to von Buch, concern about Russian activity more than justified: all the fjords and bays, islands all along the coast is full of Russian three-masted ships. He estimated that in July and August in Finnmark is several thousand Russian. In addition, he noted the tendency for the upcoming Russian expansion. Before that Russia did not appear west of Vadsø, now you can meet them farther south, to the very Tromso. Von Buch in the most dramatic colors described the consequences of the Russian expansion, stating that water from Vardo for the whole year are Russian fiefdom. Russian fishermen have captured the entire store, and in the Norwegian Sea off the constant and Saami villages full of Russian ships. Their holds are full of fish, which do not behold the inhabitants of Vardo, suffering from hunger. Year after year, the coastal population is desperate laments the fact that "Russian coffin us, they deprive us of the means of subsistence and prevent us from fishing." The common feature of these 3 reports — focus on the dual nature of the relationship between the Russian and Norwegian. On the one hand, the lives of the people of the North Last absolutely dependent on trade with the Russian, which had absolutely nothing to change. On the other hand, both the population and the local authorities were afraid that it would lead to the permanent occupancy Russian coast to the complete exclusion of their local fishermen. In general, all three reports confirm that the source of conflict in Finnmark is the exploitation of natural resources, and that concerns Norwegians grew along with the strengthening of Russian activity. There is no hesitation that anti-Russian sentiment engendered by the advent of the last North modernized society. At their base lay not artificially made legends and feed off each other conflicting interests and tensions between the variou
s ethnic communities.

In a yearly report on the state of the kingdom just crowned Karl Johan XIII in February 1818, informed the Parliament that the government was forced to put an end to the mess Finnmark and protect ordinary people from violence to which it is exposed to foreign fishermen and merchants in this remote part of the kingdom. Of course, in the years following the proclamation of Norwegian independence in 1814, in Finnmark has developed a much more severe situation than many historians are drawing almost idyllic picture of which was recognized in the political discourse.

Countermeasures: the restoration of the fortress Vardehus and naval expedition of 1816-1819 years.

Worries about Russian activity had the effect of not only the reports of the commissions, the stories of travelers, diplomatic offers and official regulations. In addition, Norway has sought to sovereignty over the disputed lands and pursued an active policy of consolidating its territory. About how seriously the government views the situation, indicating a return to the fortress garrison Vardehus (north-eastern outpost of Norway since the beginning of the XIV century.) And the adoption of the measures of the Carl-Johan reported to Parliament in 1818 Ancient fortress Vardehus aged and lost its military value by the end of the XVIII century. The government's memorandum in 1793 stated that because of the degree of destruction of the fortress can not make any military functions, and it should be abolished. But, according to Leopold von Buch, as the fortress was closed in the area returned Russian. Because lord already in 1800, two years after the abolition of the fortress, she decided to return to the garrison. In 1807, von Buch said of the immense importance of the fortress, if not Finnmark became Russian province, so just because of the presence in the fort captain, a lieutenant and 20 fighter. Their presence has ensured that this remote region remains part of the kingdom. If it was not a fortress, the political ties of Finnmark with Copenhagen could be broken because of the grain trade, tie Finnmark to Arkhangelsk, Russian coast and settlement. Even more important than the existence of the garrison played other measures for the approval of the Norwegian sovereignty. In a situation where the Norwegian fleet was disbanded, and a young civilization is fighting for political survival because of the tragic lack of money, the authorities still deem it necessary for three years in a row since 1816, in the summer months to send in Finnmark armed naval expedition . Naval Command enacted expeditions "to support the royal power and maintain order in harbors and coastal waters," and as the need to resort to force, "without regard to the likely The advantage of the enemy." The situation was listed so severe that for the first time in the history of the young country's government found it necessary to use force methods. The most important source for the history of these expeditions — diary lieutenant Thomas Kono … 19-year-old Thomas Kono was the captain of the armed schooner "Axel Thorsen."

In the middle of February 1816 Lieutenant Hartwig Casper Christie, flotilla commander of the Coast, located in the middle of Norway, Trondheim, has received an order to prepare for the first of these expeditions. The squadron came out of Trondheim on May 7. Christie has been entrusted to the sea and on the land to protect the sovereign rights of the coast of Finnmark Norway … According to Thomas Kono, officers learned about the purpose of the expedition only on arrival in Vadsø first of July. Read out by a team order said that the main task of the expedition — to oversee the activities of the Russian, who illegally fish, build houses wherever they please, and do not pay taxes. In addition to this task, from the squadron needed to carry out mapping work, as there were no charts the coast of northern Norway … In addition, there was no sailing directions, no organized coastal pilotage service, nor a list of harbors, anchorages and places that are applicable for mooring. How was uneventful information about the northern territories, was of course after the 1814 reports of Colonel Benoni Obert on the state of the Norwegian coastal forts and batteries can be seen that even the authorities had no information about the forts in this part of the country. The Commission is designed to conduct inspections, had no practical ability to visit the building on the Late North. Accordingly, this task was assigned to the squadron Finnmark. Naval expedition found that the fortress Vardehus has no military value, despite the fact that it has recently returned garrison and fortress walls and buildings were renovating. This shows how poorly these areas are integrated into the life of the country. Going to Hammerfest, the expedition for the first time met a Russian at the Norwegian countryside. Saw them both on land and at sea, in the appropriate boats (lodjer). Thomas Kono noted that the entire coast of Hammerfest to the Varanger Fjord was a lot of Russian fishermen and merchants, although the precise number he did not specify. But in 1820 in the journal Budstikken said that once a year in those waters were up to 200 boats and hundreds of Russian two-masted vessels.

Naval expeditions of 1817 and 1818. reconstruct the problem as completely as the 1816 expedition But of course, that all these expeditions were guided by the same orders, it is also clear that the chief bureaucrat of Finnmark was told to hire a 2-Russian translation for the expedition in 1817 but the expedition 1816, according to the views of the authorities, was successful. In January 1817, Hartwig Casper Christie received from Navy Command telegram, in which the Swedish governor of Norway expressed his gratification, the same estimate of the expedition gave in March, the Crown Prince Carl Johan. Expeditions in Finnmark, apparently, to carry out their tasks, three years have been discontinued. In its own report on the state of the kingdom for 1818 Crown Prince emphasized how important that Norway has a sufficient number of warships capable of defending the honor of His Majesty's kingdom and protect trade. The next time the fleet again visited Finnmark only during the first cholera epidemic 1830. From this it is evident that naval expeditions were able to secure the sovereignty of Norway over Finnmark. In 1820, the magazine Budstikken confirmed this, stating that the Navy took control of the situation. The military action taken by the Norwegian government, show that it considered it necessary to stop the invasion of Russian nationals in Finnmark, and Thomas Kono reports that guided the acquired order, the squadron a couple times resorted to force. But it should also highlight the modesty of these measures: the Norwegian government, of course, did not consider that prepyadstviya in Finnmark made purposeful activity of the Russian authorities. How to restore the fortress Vardehus and naval expedition in Finnmark, in principle, was conceived as a purely policing.

Border and territorial rights

One of the main reasons for the conflict between the two nations-name lay in the fact that the Russian expansion in the region did not have a barrier in the form of a fixed boundary between Norway and Russia. The composition of the border territories were immense common neighborhood (Neiden Pasvik and Pacey) inhabited by indigenous peoples of the region. In 1814, only contract the border remained a prisoner in the 1751 contract between the united kingdom of Denmark and Norway and Sweden, in which contained two provisions: one — concerning the criteria for demarcation of the border to the south of the county total, and the second, known as Article of the Lapps (Sami) — specifies the rights of indigenous people to grazing, fishing and hunting in these neighborhoods. When, in 1721, after the Great Northern War majestically here seriously bega
n to develop fisheries and regional trade, the last North was neither legally nor administratively prepared for such economic expansion, and over time it became clear that the contract in 1751 is not sufficient to completely prevent friction generated by the growth in economic activity and the seizure of new lands and aquatic spaces. In addition to the unresolved border issue in the general vicinity, and the Norwegians, and the Russian announced their own historical rights on the ground of neighbors. Danish and Norwegian rulers for centuries claimed the land of the Kola Peninsula. That's why the royal bureaucrats in Finnmark to collect taxes in the years 1613-1813. Coke decided expedition to the area from Neiden to Ponoy. In turn, Russia declared its own right to tax the land directly to the west of Malang. But after the 1600 Russian did not collect taxes west Varanger. Norwegian rulers since the Middle Ages considered the lands west of the Varanger Fjord as the Norwegian countryside and in the XIV century. built a fort Vardehus, serving as the north-eastern outpost of the country. The land to the east of the Varanger Fjord never was listed as a part of the de facto Norway, but in the years before the signing of the Norwegian-Russian contract in 1826 on the border of Norway took possession of its significant part.

Oscar Albert Johnsen points out that the Norwegians to the settlement of the boundary question prompted the fate of Finland. Published in August 1816 a royal decree sought to clarify the passage of the border with Sweden in accordance with the contract in 1751, with the boundary line was to be conducted through the common neighborhood of Skekkemeksa to the Arctic Ocean. This decree is another Norwegian Initiative on the border with Russia unchanged. But it did not bring quick results. The decision to send in Finnmark naval expedition was made before the king's order, and is one of Norway's numerous attempts to consolidate land on the Late North. In addition, the question of the passage of the maritime boundary was settled in 1814 only partly. No country at the time did not apply for a clear definition of the extent of their own territorial waters, and we do not see any Danish-Norwegian maps, which could somehow be identified or mentioned maritime borders. But at the same time for different purposes practiced conducting maritime borders based on historical precedents. There were four main categories of maritime boundaries: the quarantine boundaries at the time of epidemics, the customs border, the border of fisheries and boundaries of neutral waters. The distance separating these limits from the coast, varying from country to country.

In the Norwegian legal and historical traditions of the above-mentioned government memorandum in 1812 is seen as the first attempt to legislate the general principle of the maritime boundary is 4 miles from the coast. Moreover, the magnitude of four miles as the width of the territorial waters exists in several royal decrees published in the XVIII century. But this idea of the extent of territorial waters would not do to address the issue of the attribution of fisheries, as evidenced by the conflicts with Russian fishermen in the Barents Sea. The fact that the memorandum in 1812 the passage of maritime boundaries regulated solely in respect of the prize law, and of the fisheries there said nothing. Yet, in the unfolded in the first half of the XX century. the struggle for the four mile maritime limit on the memorandum referred to as historical proof davneshney Norwegian traditions in all cases to conduct maritime border is 4 miles from the coast. Almost a memorandum in 1812 became known to the public only in 1830, after J. Chr. Berg has published a history of army reserves. Accordingly, neither the Russian government nor the fishermen could not know about the undeclared sea border. It is necessary to read the official decree on the territorial waters would not be kept secret. There is no evidence that the Russian authorities have ever been protesting against the common maritime borders. On the contrary, von Buch says that Russian nationals hunted fish off the coast of Finnmark, never claimed that they are in Russian waters. Four Mile breadth of territorial waters finally been recognized and included in the Russia trade agreement in 1838, Christopher Meyer argues that coastal waters were divided into indoor and outdoor water so called political coastline, which took place 4 miles from the coast, following the general outlines of his . Inland waters, according to Meyer, had the same legal status as the land territory, and accordingly does not matter what activity within their borders certainly fell within the scope of the king's laws. The length of the outer territorial waters depended on the purpose for which they were used, there were a variety of historical precedents for the drawing of fishing, customs and quarantine boundaries. Meyer's controversial statement is to ensure that, with respect to the fishing grounds Norway has long considered its waters, even those that are far beyond the four mile strip recognized internationally only as a neutral waters and rights in respect of the prize. Sources on naval expeditions in Finnmark generally support this view. The orders given by the expeditions did not contain any obvious mention of fishing limits. However, Thomas Kono noted that Russian fishing unacceptably close to shore, but from his own notes to be important — that allowed the Russian ruler to fish outside the four mile zone. From this it can be concluded that the water outside the Four Mile area of fisheries were under royal jurisdiction once the master could give permission for their implementation. So Makar, conflict 1810s. demonstrate that the provisions of the XVIII century have not lost by the time of their own strength, in other words, the classic fishing grounds were listed were under royal jurisdiction, regardless of their distance from the coast.

But although a number of decrees protecting the sovereign rights of Norway and the Russian law on slander fishing, trade, and temporary settlements in Finnmark, remained one fundamental flaw in the absence of regulatory institutions. Norwegian military presence in Finnmark was not enough to ensure sovereignty over these lands. Accordingly, the task to maintain the existing legal regime has been assigned to the expedition is sent to Finnmark. These expeditions provided the order only on the Norwegian sure the area west of the disputed districts. The diary of Thomas Kono contains a lot of evidence that the Norwegian sovereignty in Finnmark disputed Russian citizens on their own initiative, on the other hand, there is no evidence that the Russian authorities were opposed to the legal regime of Finnmark. The most severe challenge facing our expeditions was to create a Russian settlements. The first time, Kono noted this fact in his diary on arrival at Kiberg 3 July 1816 the squadron was warned in advance that there is a huge number of houses built. Kono amazed at how the Russian managed to build "a city" in such proximity to the fortress Vardehus. The next time he mentioned the Russian settlement on July 10, being at Hamninsberga. The inhabitants of both villages were ordered to illumine dismantle their homes. A month later expedition found another Russian settlement. August 11 Gamvik Lt. Christy arrested several Russian who built the house on the harbor. In fact, they had a legitimate right to land, build houses but they were not allowed. On the same day in Berlevåg Kono inspected the place where previously stood warehouse. After it blew someone Misha Peninsula [Michalew Aasttroff], another Russian built the house in its place. He was ordered to dismantle the house before departing from Norway. When the expedition on August 23 arrived in Båtsfjord, it turned out that over the summer there are several Russian built new homes, despite previous warnings. These homes were ordered to carry the same for the next day, in the unlikely event the
house could be torn down landing party. And an armed schooner and cutter are poised for battle. From the bow gun was manufactured by a warning shot guns on both ships were loaded with ammunition, designed for the defeat of manpower. Russian for the next day or so and have not started to disassemble the house, instead of sending it to an armed schooner delegation of 3 persons. They asked for leniency, and brought gifts — bread and cakes. But Lieutenant Christie remained adamant. Without waiting for the demolition of the houses, at noon, he gave the order to disembark landing party of 28 people, half of whom had a gun. Immediately armed schooner turned the gun on his Russian village. Only then Russian obeyed the order and by 6 pm all the houses were demolished.

Construction of constant Russian settlements, obviously, was seen as the most severe threat to Norwegian sovereignty. According to official regulations, Russia had no right to build houses and stay in Norway for the winter. The naval expedition learned that self-authorized Russian settlements are first created on the Varanger Peninsula. In fact, there is only the settlements and have been locked except Gamvik Nordkyn Peninsula. Check the eastern Finnmark Russian was a direct consequence of the development of fisheries and trade. Russian settlers in the main consisted of fishermen, at least — merchants who needed land bases, which they were allowed to build for the summer season. But, no special vibrations that illegal settlements appeared due to the general economic growth in the region, not being part of the "colonization" of the process, organized or encouraged by the central Russian authorities, despite the fact that such fear again and again heard in the middle of the local population in northern Norway.

The development of seasonal fishing

As already mentioned, after the Great Northern War majestically seasonal fishing off the coast of Finnmark has undergone a fundamental configuration. It became involved residents of other areas of northern Norway and the coast dwellers, who lived on the banks of snow-white sea. Villages Hammerfest, Tromso and Vardo by the end of the XVIII century. received town privileges (Vadsø — in 1833). So Makar, the development of fishing and trade contributed to overall economic growth in this part of the country. But fisheries not brought much-or significant configurations in Finnmark straight to the end of the XIX century., Priemuschestvenno because the fishermen were coming from Russia and from other parts of northern Norway. With all of this are unknown to researchers no major clashes between Norwegian and Russian in the XVIII century. Because the conflicts that took place after 1814, are treated as an exception. The city of Hammerfest is pervoprohodchikom in the modernization of fishing on the Late North. Thomas Kono Renders vivid picture of this malehankih city, emphasizing the abundance of fish in the surrounding waters. In the sea was full of boats and the streets were so overwhelmed with fish guts that barely managed to stay on his feet. After the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 fraction Norwegians engaged in these fisheries, markedly decreased, while Russia does not diminish their activity. Even in 1820, it was reported that the number of Russian fishermen in these waters is constantly growing. But the Norwegian government and the local population after 1814 took the Russian presence as a danger, due to the configuration priemuschestvenno relationship between Norwegian and Russian, and not because of the real influx of the latter. Leopold von Buch notes the important feature of Russian appropriate, for the most part escaped the attention of Norwegian historians — namely, "the amazing ingenuity and enterprise," which was in stark contrast to the chaotic approach Norwegians in terms of methods of fishing.

Maybe the Norwegians were very poor and could not fish for bait only in the vicinity of their own places of residence, but other than that, many of them were "lazy, wallowed in poverty and alcoholism." With all this, Russian not only different work ethic and aggressiveness, and used more advanced methods of fishing. In the spring they were catching bait, which were transported to Russia, and in the summer vorachivalis for a role in actually fishing. In general, von Buch was very impressed with the Russian activity in Finnmark, although he shared the horrors of Norwegians were worried about their future. Jens Rathke came against Russian to similar conclusions. Hence, just come to the conclusion that the local representation of the Russian danger were spawned in the early XIX century. conflicts over fisheries. Seasonal influx of Russian with white and Norwegian Sea in the south of the country was perceived by local people as an invasion. Moreover, seasonal fishermen used more advanced ways of fishing than the local population. Local residents were fishing from the shore, a Russian, boating, arranged the fishing gear along the coast. Obviously, the catch of local fishermen from this decline. Adopted by the Saami sophisticated and environmentally-equilibrium principles of the division of pastures and rassredotachivaniya other rights in the XVIII century died out evenly. Thomas Kono said sharply increased use of local resources and the corresponding pressure to which the Sami culture. The Danish-Norwegian authorities sought to regulate the activity of Russian in Finnmark from the middle of the XVIII century. According to the rescript of 1747, Russia had no right to fish closer than 4 nautical miles from the coast, and any fishing boat had to pay the tax. But Thomas Kono writes that Russian evaded payment of duty on the fish exported to Russia. The development of trade and fisheries in the XVIII century. eventually provided the Russian nationals certain privileges in Norway, known as "kibergskie law" and scientists in a commercial treaty in 1838 in accordance with the contract, the Russian fishermen have the right to organize during the fishing season in Kiberg interim land base. Norwegian fishermen have the same right in the Murmansk coast. This indicates that both the Russian and the Norwegian authorities by the time recognized that their own nationals certain historical rights to the adjacent territories.

Coastal trade

The term "coastal trade" referred to as the commercial activities of Russian citizens — coast-dwellers, inhabitants of coastal sea of snow-white — who arrived in the summer of Finnmark, leading with your own ships trading with the local population. Priemuschestvenno they sold grain, as a rope and fishing gear, instead of buying a Norwegian fish, hides and handicrafts. In addition, traded here and constantly lived negotiators also was conducted barter. Pomeranian trade growth is a direct consequence of the development of fisheries. No special vibrations that coastal trade benefited the population of the region — numerous testimonies they say that local communities had treated her very laudatory. Most of the historians who have written about the coastal trade, saw this phenomenon from a local point of view, because in the sources and historical literature, it is usually served in a positive way. Accordingly, there is a tendency to ignore prepyadstviya associated with this trade, and the lack of control over it by the authorities. Of course, that Russian negotiators did priemuschestvenno difficulties for officials, but not for the population as a whole. In local terms, this trade is not for pulling a no noteworthy conflicts between Norwegian and Russian. But the Danish-Norwegian authorities because it might appear difficult at times because of the limited ability to see the observance of laws on taxes and monopoly rights.

Recent owned merchant houses of Copenhagen, who belonged to the coastal trade with hostility. The main memory that can be drawn from the study of historical materials, is red
uced to the fact that coastal trade after 1814 was an important connecting link between Russia and Norway. And with the Norwegian and Russian side of the border with the lives of the people depended on this exchange. And this dependence puts the power of a dead end — they did not know how to put the coastal trade under control, despite several attempts to stop it completely. Jens Rathke shows that the population of Finnmark like to trade with Russian and that fishing is conducted here with great zeal, until the fish managed to sell Russian. But it also points to a number of problems inherent in the trade in Finnmark. In particular, he was concerned about the large-scale sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. These new products are especially bad old way affected the lifestyle of the Sami. Leopold von Buch noted that Russia does not always comply with government regulations and Norwegian laws. But he gave his attention to the popularity Pomeranian trade. Although Russian merchants from time to time accused of fraud, the local population has always enthusiastically "waiting for arrival of Russian." According to Salomon Kraft, the volume of trade in the seacoast of the XVIII century. was relatively small. The real breakthrough is observed only after 1800 Because of this the first years of the XIX century deserve particularly close study. Thomas Kono agrees that the provisions on trade are often violated and that the local authorities priemuschestvenno tried to achieve compliance with export laws and customs regulations. Violation of laws and regulations to be unacceptably blocked, but at the same time they do not have the ability to affect the merchants. Monopoly on trade in Finnmark in 1681 received the Hanseatic city of Bergen. But Bergen negotiators have lost their privileges in 1715, This was followed by a period of free trade is actually in the north, which lasted until 1728 since the monopoly rights were granted to merchant houses of Copenhagen, which retained their privileges directly to the liberalization of trade in 1789, not counting the that was conducted in Finnmark and imperial trade. But, watch the observance of monopoly rights in the latter the northern region of the kingdom was unreal.

On the one hand, the city has a monopoly trading houses eager to get rid of the competition from the Russian, as it undermines their economic situation. But on the other hand, for the fishing communities with specific Russian trade was very profitable. Because local residents dependent on Russian products, they willy-nilly had to violate laws and regulations. The remoteness of Finnmark was pulling for a lack of real candidates import grain from Russia. Coastal trade from time to time become necessary even true for the population of the Last of the North. Because it was legalized in 1787, with the simultaneous cancellation of existing trade of benefits. According to the decision of the newcomer in 1796, for the period from 15 July to 15 August was permitted to smooth trade between local fishermen and Russian negociant. Then right before the 1814 smooth trade developed smoothly. Dependence of northern Norway on trade with Russia is fully manifested during the British blockade that followed the war in 1807 Since 1809 smooth trade between Norwegian and Russian in Finnmark resolved with virtually no restrictions. But in 1814, after the war, this authorization was canceled. Sending naval expeditions, namely, served a purpose back restrictions on direct trade. But already in 1818 the government had to abandon these attempts, and smooth trade was liberalized again. One of the tasks assigned to squadrons Finnmark, has been monitoring compliance with customs regulations, and Kono wrote in his diary that Russia did not pay taxes. In the summer of 1816 the squadron was notified that, according to the newcomer imperial decree, the Russian did not have to pay duties on products exported from Norway, but they are required to present their goods at customs. In general, the features do Pomeranian trade compliance, a very difficult task. The inhabitants of this region, regardless of citizenship, is almost done at self-sufficient economy to the role of interdependent parties. In addition, in Norway, a conflict of interest between the local population, local trading houses, trading houses, and received a royal privilege, and the central authorities. The success of efforts to unite the country, undertaken after gaining independence in Norway in 1814, in fact, depend on the destruction of the legal and economic power of transnational processes on the northern periphery of Norway and Russia. But this puzzle could be solved only in the case of other sources of supply and markets that make up the basis for economic transactions. Because it is very problematic to make border controls, aiming to destruction of the local economy, in almost all respects a whole.

Conclusion

One of the starting pt for this study was put forward by historians, and not only them, the view that the idea of the Russian danger was a political fiction, a policy adopted by the Norwegian social elite from the middle of the XIX century. Argues that the idea was quite alien to the population of Finnmark, who had a tight fit and davneshnie ties with Russia. After the end of the Cool War, this approach has created an idyllic tendency characteristic of historical work on the relationship between Russia and Norway on the Late North. Another starting point was the intention of finding nature of conflict in the north in order to find out whether there are any elements of continuity with the current situation. As we litsezreem, true manifestation of the conflict of interests between different groups of inhabitants being the Last of the North-wali for a long time before the idea of Russian expansionist plans. Protectionist measures applied by the Norwegian authorities have been caused by the behavior of Russian citizens before and after the 1814 Accordingly, the basis of those measures lay not so much a characteristic of the Russian political elite sense of danger, how much different the obvious conflicts that have arisen over the fishing trade and illegal settlements.

Norwegian authorities have no special circumstances to believe that the incidents are caused by the North on the Late Russian expansionist plans of the country. These conflicts are seen as an inevitable consequence of economic activity in the almost uninhabited, undeveloped, unexplored and do not obey the laws of the region, which also was rich in natural resources. The Norwegian government has shown signs to resolve in a bid to strengthen its position in Finnmark. Naval expeditions were instructed to use all necessary measures to protect the public interest and those performed without hesitation that order. Taking into account the recent disparity between Norway and Russia can imagine that Russia would take strong countermeasures, if their strategic plans ran into resistance militarily weak little neighbor. But it did not work out. The reason may have been that the Russian government is not much interested in the latest North, the Norwegian providing complete freedom of action.

The naval expedition in Finnmark were made at the time of the birth of several conflicts related to the establishment of sovereignty over the Arctic and its economic implementation. Penetration of the last North, happened in the XIX and XX centuries., Generate new tensions. Russian citizens first encroached on the Norwegian fishing interests and territorial rights in the region, but with the second half of the XIX century. observed the emergence of new players, and penetrated into the national area, and no man's land (terra nullius) The Last of the North: the claims stated fishermen, hunters, prospectors, miners, researchers and scientists from many countries. But, until the First World War did not occur in the region of armed conflict — only the incidents occurred, requiring the introduction of everyday policing. The Paris
Conference in 1920 recognized the right of Norway to Svalbard, but since all the signatories to the contract, have every right to exploit natural resources of the archipelago, just before the second World War, no harsh political conflicts in this regard did not appear. Declared in 1921, claims Russian authorities dvenadtsatimilnuyu width of the territorial waters and the annexation of all the land between the land north pole and the northern coast of the Russian Federation in 1926 made it difficult for fishermen and hunters, who were deprived of access to the usual fishing and hunting areas on the Kola coast to the snow-white neck Sea and in the Arctic.

Pirjo Saariniemi argues that despite the vast contacts, geographical proximity and similar living conditions, "material and non-material culture," Norwegians and coast-dwellers "still fundamentally different from each other." Thomas Kono left us brightest stories about how Norwegian officers confronted with these differences in mind, the life style and culture. Although in modern historical literature cultural differences almost no attention in historical sources and then they are in plain sight. We can say that although the early XIX century. inter with 2 countries did not have state boundaries between the various peoples of the region still ran conspicuous cultural "border." Overall, this study indicates that the database russkonorvezhskih conflicts in Finnmark and in the disputed area lying not abstract or irrational ideas about the danger posed by a neighbor, but rather clear differences on human rights and boundaries. Penetration of the area gave rise to a draw new contacts between different ethnic groups and cultures. But there were no severe conflicts between the Russian and the Norwegian government did not appear until the second World War, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Molotov declared on non-recognition of Norwegian sovereignty over Svalbard. Because it would be illogical to consider the case between Russian, Norwegian and Sami on the Late North only from the standpoint of international relations and security issues. Diligent researcher must apply to applications for tysche years of peace and friendship to the same as "trumped-up story", and that the myth of the "Russian danger."

The region is very true is viewed historically one of the devices appearance of conflicts. Last constantly followed by the discovery of new resources and the introduction of profitable ways to use them. The essence prepyadstviya often is that these resources are located in regions where the local authority is weak or completely absent. Because the development of resources is often accompanied by a statement of rights to adequate land and water areas or annexation. Perhaps a closer study, we will identify another pattern. The region considered in this article, was affected by the First World War, but not due to local conflicts over borders and resources. The conflicts in the Arctic, which took place in the interwar period, not pulled over a severe resonance in international relations. But the political configuration that has developed during the second world war and in the process Cool war turned in the Arctic region of geo-strategic confrontation, even when the conventional solution of conflicts over borders and resources necessary to find a multilateral security system. After the fall of the Berlin wall nuances of security on the Late North retreated to the second plan, and you can imagine what the region back story. Another conflict from now solved on a bilateral basis, but entirely possible that at some point the situation will change again.

The actual text — shortened version of the article (references omitted), in the Russian language for the first time placed in the publication: Russian COLLECTION: Studies in the History of the Russian Federation / Ed.-status. O. R. Airapetov, Miroslav Jovanovic, MA Shade, Bruce Manning, Paul Cheysti. Volume VIII. Moscow, 2010.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: