Book Review : Martin Saeter & Ian Smart (eds.): The Political Implications of North Sea Oil and Gas. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo and IPC Science and Technology Press Ltd., Guildford 1975. 168 pp
| Author | IB Faurby |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677601100105 |
| Published date | 01 March 1976 |
| Date | 01 March 1976 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Book
Review
IB
FAURBY
Martin
Saeter
&
Ian
Smart
(eds.):
The
Political
Implications
of
North
Sea
Oil
and
Gas.
Universitetsforlaget,
Oslo
and
IPC
Science
and
Technology
Press
Ltd.,
Guildford
1975.
168
pp.
The
subject
of
this
timely
book
is
stated
with
remarkable
clarity
in
its
title
and
is
further
specified
in
the
preface
as
being
’to
identify
the
ways
in
which
North
Sea
development
might
imply
either
the
pos-
sibility
for
future
international
conflict
or
the
need
for
future
international
co-
operation’.
It
is
the
result
of
a
conference
held
at
Tonsberg
in
February
1975
under
the
auspices
of
the
Norwegian
Institute
of
International
Affairs
and
the
Royal
In-
stitute
of
International
Affairs.
The
book
consists
of
revised
versions
of the
papers
given
to
the
conference
and
a
summary
of
the
discussions
following
the
presen-
tation
of
each
paper.
As
is
normal
for
a
publication
brought
about
in
this
way,
its
individual
chapters
vary
in
style
and
quality,
and
the
sum
is
a
less
systematic
coverage
of
the
subject
than
a
presenta-
tion
by
a
single
author
could
have
been,
had
any
single
person
been
able
satis-
factorily
to
deal
with
the
wide
range
of
problems
raised.
The
Norwegian
perspective
clearly
dominates
in
the
composition
of
con-
tributions -
though
not
in
the
debates.
For
example,
Bjom
Skogstad
Aamo
has
written
a
chapter
on
’Norwegian
Oil
Pol-
icy’,
but
there
is
no
chapter
on
British
policy -
or
Dutch
policy,
for
that
matter.
One
therefore
feels
a
need
for
a
more
equal
treatment
of
the
policies
of
the
different
North
Sea
states,
even
though
contributions
like
Louis
Turner’s
on
’State
and
Commercial
Interests’
and
Ewan
Brown’s
on
’Finance
for
the
North
Sea’
do
give
relevant
information
on
British
policy
as
well
as
the
policies
of
the
other
countries.
Neither
editors
nor
authors
are,
how-
ever, to
blame
for
the
superficial
treat-
ment
of
the
Danish
sector.
It
is
in
any
case
less
interesting
than
the
other
sec-
tors,
but
more
importantly,
both
the
holder
of
the
monopoly
concession
rights
and
the
Danish
government
seem
to
be
haunted
by
an
almost
paranoic
fear
of
giving
away
even
the
kind
of
information
which
in
other
sectors
is
considered
com-
mon
knowledge.
The
predominance
of
the
Norwegian
point
of
view
is
also
marked
in
Johan
Jorgen
Holst’s
paper
on
’The
Strategic
and
Security
Requirements’.
This
criti-
cism
does
not
mean
that
the
Norwegian
point
of
view
is
not
extremely
interesting,
but
it
does
mean
that there
is
an
imbal-
ance
in
the
presentation
of
the
problems,
and
therefore
in
the
basis
on
which
pro-
spects
for
future
cooperation
and
con-
flict
are
to
be
evaluated.
But
maybe
this
preoccupation
with
Norway
is
both
natural
and
necessary.
It
is
striking
to
see
how
the
broadly
composed
and
well-informed
group
mak-
ing
up
the
participants
in
this
conference
either
does
not
understand
or
is
un-
wilrng
to
accept
the
basic
premises
of
Norwegian
policy.
The
pressures
brought
to
bear
on
the
Norwegian
position
stand
out
from
several
of
the
summaries
of
the
discussions,
but
probably
most
clearly
in
the
following
passage:
It
was
also,
however,
suggested
that,
if
Norway
refused,
in
critical
cir-
cumstances,
to
produce
oil
in
the
quantities
desired
by
other
West
European
countries,
a
time
might
come
when
even
she
could
be
sub-
ject
to
military
action
by
one
or
more
of
those
countries,
intent
on
getting
oil
(pp.
141-142).
An
evaluation
of
the
oil
and
gas
re-
To continue reading
Request your trial