SLN Norway Position Papers on 5 Resolutions to be Debated

Resolution 1 by Italy: concerning the question of the

prevention, mitigation, management and restructuring of
non-sustainable national debt in advanced economies as well
as less developed ones, so as to prevent national debt crisis
Norway position: The country is one of less than 5 countries in the entire world which does
not have any foreign debt to pay back. Norway pays 4,687,226 million euros (equivalent of
3,754,000 SDR – sdr being the international monetary funds currency) to the International
Monetary fund each year since the figure was increased in 2016.
Norway would vote for this resolution (most likely) since it has no government debt and can
afford, more so than pretty much any other country on the planet, to spend/donate some
money. On point 2 of the operative clauses, would agree, since Norway is well under limit
and it would stop LEDC getting stuck in a destabilising cycle, whereby they would constantly
owe money. Would also agree on point 3 since 15% of the Norwegian population is aged 65
or over meaning they are retired and mostly incapable of working full time.

 Norway has a gross public debt to GDP ratio of 36.66% and it also currently has one
of the world’s lowest government debt to GDP ratio at -90.5%, meaning the
government owe nothing to any internal lenders or external lenders/institutions (like
the international monetary fund, or other banks).
 This means that Norway is in the very special position of receiving more money than
it spends. This is mainly the case because of the ‘Government Pension Fund Global’
(referred to as ‘oil fund’), which is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund and is
owned by the Norwegian government.
 The fund was created to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum
sector (since Norway has massive oil reserves off of its coastline). The fund has over
US 1 trillion in assets, including 1.4% of the world’s stocks and shares.
 In addition, the government itself partly own an oil company and also gain income
from their own exploration and production licences for petroleum and natural gas on
the Norwegian continental shelf.
 The government owns ‘petoro’, a company which oversees the extraction of
petroleum by the government’s partly owned multinational energy company Equinor
which runs operations of Norway’s coastline.
Terms and definitions:
External/foreign debt - Foreign debt is an outstanding loan or set of loans that one country
owes to another country or institutions within that country. Foreign debt also includes
obligations to international organizations such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank
or Inter-American Development Bank.
Internal debt (contrasts the above) - Internal debt or domestic debt is the part of the total
government debt in a country that is owed to lenders within the country.
Fiscal balance - Fiscal balance (% of GDP), sometimes also referred to as government
budget balance, is calculated as the difference between a government's revenues (taxes and
proceeds from asset sales) and its expenditures. ... If the balance is positive, the
government has a surplus (it spends less than it receives).
Government debt - Government debt, also known as public interest, public debt, national
debt and sovereign debt, contrasts to the annual government budget deficit, which is a flow
variable that equals the difference between government receipts and spending in a single
year (government debt can be external/foreign or internal/national).

Resolution 2 by Australia: concerning the prohibition of

Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs)
Norway position: (from 2014 conference on LAWs) At the 2014 CCW experts meeting,
Norway said that “lethal autonomous weapons systems would use lethal force to search,
identify and attack targets without any meaningful human control. It noted such weapons
raise a number of ethical and legal questions and said Norway’s main concern is whether
they could be programmed to operate within international humanitarian law. Norway
expressed concern that autonomous weapons could “blur lines of accountability” because
the “limited human role could end with no one being responsible.”
In 2018, Norway repeated the same message at a conference on such weapons. Their major
concern was about how LAWs can adhere to international humanitarian laws when there is
no one in full, decisive control of the device, which still has the potential to kill humans.
Although Norway does not explicitly state that they wish to ban LAWs, they welcomed the
proposal put forward jointly by Germany and France of having a political declaration on this
pressing subject.
Norway also stated its definition of LAWs as being “weapons systems that are able to select
and attack targets without adequate, meaningful or necessary human judgement and
control. These are systems with autonomy, or at least elements of autonomy, in their
‘critical functions’”.
Sample 2018 resolution on LAW’s by ALDE group (alliance of liberals and democrats for
Europe group) including potential suggestions:
1. Stresses the imperative of establishing a common EU policy to prevent the emergence
and subsequent potential proliferation of any autonomous lethal weapon system;
2. Highlights its concern about the growing use of autonomous weapon systems by non-
state actors, such as the so-called Islamic State group, through the combining of
commercially available equipment; fears the uncontrolled use of artificially intelligent
technology;
3. Calls on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy (VP/HR), the Member States and the European Council to develop and
adopt, as a matter of urgency and prior to the November 2018 meeting of the High
Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a common
position on autonomous weapon systems that ensures human control over the critical
functions during deployment, and to speak in relevant forums with one voice and act
accordingly; calls, in this context, on the VP/HR, the Member States and the Council to share
best practices and garner input from experts, academics and civil society;
4. Urges the VP/HR, the Member States and the Council to work on the establishment of a
new chapter within the framework of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons,
with a view to an international ban on autonomous weapon systems that are capable of
diverging from the ways in which humans have programmed the critical function of
selecting and engaging targets; stresses, moreover, the fundamental importance of
preventing the research, development and production of any autonomous lethal weapon
system lacking human control in critical functions such as target selection and engagement;
5. Calls on the Member States to take responsibility for fulfilling their existing international
legal and ethical obligations in the development and use of their weapons technology;
6. Recalls its position of 13 March 2018 on the Regulation on the European Defence
Industrial Development Programme, in particular paragraph 4 of Article 6 (eligible actions),
and underlines its willingness to adopt a similar position in the context of the upcoming
defence research programme, the defence industrial development programme and other
relevant features of the post-2020 European Defence Fund;
7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the
European External Action Service, the governments and parliaments of the Member States
and the United Nations.
The resolution has a few things which could be improved. We would vote for it if
amendments are made probably or if some explanation is given. In places, some of the
suggestions are vague, for example, how would all the executives agree on whether to give
sanctions or not and what is the number of votes needed for the decision to sanction a
country going to be? Also, how do online “sensitive software anti-proliferation schemes”
stop all movement of AI weapons to rogue states/terrorists? They could track the weapons,
but would UNCLAW have armed officers/work with militaries to take weaponry off of
groups? Beyond that resolution is very explanatory and makes sense…
Resolution 3 by China: concerning the creation of an
international detection network for individuals and
organisations which represent a criminal threat, notably
the threat posed by terrorists
Norway position: no country really has a position on this issue – obviously Norway doesn’t
want terrorists or criminals coming into the country, therefore the police try to prevent
dangerous individuals from entering. On the other hand, Norway does have an open border
with Sweden, so dangerous individuals could potentially enter through this border.
Eventhough Norway is not in the EU, it has to respect the EU’s four freedoms – freedom of
movement of goods, services, capital and people. Only customs checks are carried out at the
Norway-Russia border. On contrary, the Norway-Russia border is patrolled on both sides by
Norwegian and Russian border control offices and everyone is checked.

Furthermore, there are numerous issues with the use of surveillance and how it can invade
one’s privacy, therefore constituting an abuse of international human right laws. Articles 12
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Every one has the right to the protection of the law against such
interferences or attacks”. Therefore, this resolution suggesting the creation of an
international detection/surveillance body needs to include measures that explain how it will
abide international law.
On top of that, the use of surveillance, especially through the use of new technology, is very
controversial. On one hand, it could be argued that surveillance helps countries catch
criminals and dangerous individuals before they commit a serious and potentially harmful
act. On the flip side, surveillance could be seen as undemocratic, since you are gaining
information from someone else who would not necessarily allow you to access if you asked.
Therefore you are infringing upon their privacy, which is an offense. In addition, for
surveillance to be allowed, there has to be serious evidence of an individual or organisation
planning or committing a criminal offense. A suspicion is not enough. Also, judicial bodies
are the only institution that should have the legitimate right to authorising the use of
surveillance. If judicial permission is not given and surveillance is still carried out, this would
constitute ‘clandestine espionage’ and would be considered a hugely serious offense.
Moreover, with the development of social media and webpages, governments should not
be allowed to access third party information from private organisations or businesses unless
it is explicitly stated in the terms and conditions of the company that the customers
information may be handed on to the government.
Lastly, China itself has major issues with its use of mass surveillance on its large population.
The country probably has the most extensive surveillance system, but it could be argued
that this system is used for more than just security measures/keeping out dangerous
people. How could it be guaranteed that China’s intentions are maintaining security rather
than controlling citizens worldwide, as they do in China, where the government controls its
citizens every action (more or less).
Laws:
Serious terrorism offenses – 30 years
It is illegal to plan or conduct terrorist attacks, receive terrorism related training, or provide
material from a terrorist organisation.
In 2014, government created the ‘Joint counter terrorism centre’, which is dedicated mainly
to tracking, identifying and taking action against Norwegians who travel to Syria or Iraq with
intentions to fight.
Other measures: Norway is active in multilateral fora in efforts to counter terrorism,
including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the EU's Radicalization Awareness
Network, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). As Chair of
the OSCE Security Committee in 2017, Norway actively supported the CVE agenda, including
the role of women. Although not a member, Norway has been an active participant in Global
Counterterrorism Forum working group meetings, through which it coordinates projects
related to counterterrorism and countering violent extremism. Norway continued to support
implementation of the UN Secretary General's Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism.
Norway provided support to phase two of The Prevention Project, which focuses on localized
interventions. (refworld.org)
In November 2016, Norwegian police piloted an automated biometric identification system,
which officials aim to implement nationally in 2018. Immigration to Norway is facilitated
and regulated by the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, which processes all
applications for asylum, visas, family immigration, work and study permits, permanent
residence, and travel documents. The Norwegian police and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
issue passports. (refworld.org on immigration into Norway)
Issues with the operative clauses of resolution 3 submitted by China:
Point 1) What constitutes a dangerous individual or organisation? Such wording
requires a definition or else there will be no joint agreement on who is considered a
dangerous individual and who isn’t…
Point 1) How would you assemble all the intelligence agencies around the world?
Some of them even spy on each other or have no diplomatic relations (Pakistan-
India for example) so how would they be expected to work together. Also not every
country has an extremely large or powerful intelligence agency, this would mean that
the countries with most advanced intelligence agencies would have an advantage on
other countries.
Point 1) What would the one delegate’s background be? Would they be a spy, a
technician, surveillance specialist? Also, one delegate per country may also pose
some problems. One person cannot be completely representative of the views of the
different groups of people in their country, it would be far better to have multiple
delegates for each country.
Point 1b) How can you know exactly what the cost of all the technology equipment
will be? If the estimation is not correct, where will the surplus money go? Also, for
any country to agree with this point, a full list of equipment and costs would be
required because otherwise the money could be used for anything. Could lead to
issues of corruption, money being used for alternative purposes…
Point 1c) How could you guarantee complete transparency? It is impossible to know
as a fact that every country has shared all the information they have obtained. There
would be a lot of blackmailing and certain countries may end up in a powerful
position due to amount of information they possess. It is just not possible to trust that
all information has been shared and accessible with/to everyone. Could lead to a
situation reminiscent of the Cold war, but on a global scale rather than between
major economic powers.
Point 1d) What constitutes transnational crime or terrorism? Would need a clear
definition. More importantly, the major issue with this point is that it would be giving
the five permanent members of the security council the influence to veto or allow
other countries to intervene on foreign territory. This means that the country that is
being ‘invaded’ does not get a say in the vote and cannot veto the decision
themselves. They depend on other countries deciding their fate or the 5 permanent
security council members vetoing the suggestion. Also, this suggestion could lead to
corruption on a scale never seen before. If a country wants to intervene on foreign
territory, they may pay/bribe the five permanent security council members to allow
the deal to pass, even if there is no reason for the intervention. In addition, different
countries relations with the 5 permanent security council members would determine
largely whether their suggestion is vetoed or not. For example, any suggestion made
by Iran will be automatically vetoed by the US due to their poor relations. Lastly,
corruption could also occur on a mass scale between the five permanent member
states. They could all agree to allow one member of the 5 to intervene on foreign
territory if they each get some profits or actual land from the deal. They could also
agree to permanently veto certain countries and block out deals depending on their
wants/wills.
Points 2 and 3) Have no substance, do not really suggest how their goals can be
achieved, ie. its all good saying you want to bring peace and agree with the
sustainable development goals N16 and N17 but how are you going to do that?
Resolution on issues of privacy and surveillance written and signed by many UN member
states is in folder.
Definition: Transparency – operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what
actions are performed.
We would not vote for this resolution unless numerous amendments are made and even
then might still not vote for it.

Resolution 4 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland: concerning the creation of an international
moderating body for national level electoral processes
Norway position: the Norwegian electoral system is constructed on the Sainte-Lague
method. This means that parties get seats based mostly on how many votes they get on a
national level. Norway is a democratic nation, with the government serving for four years
before general elections are held again. Furthermore, perhaps unusually, the system does
not allow for snap elections and the monarchy cannot dissolve parliament.
To continue, in the 2017 elections, the voter turnout was 78%, more or less identical to four
years earlier. Suffrage (the right to vote in elections) in Norway is given to those who are 18
and older. Foreign citizens are not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections but are
allowed to vote in local elections if they have lived in the country for 3 years. Women have
had suffrage since 1913. The nation also has an Sami parliamentary body which holds votes
every four years and maintains the rights of Sami all over Norway. Only people who speak
Sami and possess Sami ancestry can vote in the election.
In Norway, the majority of ethnic majorities support the labour party, which is currently the
opposition to the ruling Conservative-Progress party coalition. The current government has
been criticised for its cabinets lack of diversity. One politician even said that the cabinet had
less diversity than the Republican leadership of President Trump in the US.
Worldwide, every country except the Vatican grants women the right to vote. On contrary,
in Saudi Arabia, women’s suffrage was only granted in 2015, therefore in many places
throughout the country, especially rural conservative areas, women can theoretically vote
but they are severely dissuaded from doing so or disallowed/punished if they do so. In
Brunei, the government only allows limited voting for men and women. Many other
countries in the middle east have low % female voting turnouts in elections, since women in
many Middle Eastern countries are normally dissuaded to vote. In many other countries
ethnic minorities are vastly unrepresented in the voting process. In most countries were
ethnic minority turn out is low, minorities feel that they are unable to vote (since all
candidates would represent bad options for their group) or that they will be punished if they
vote. In other countries, ethnic minorities may feel as if the establishment does not care
about them, therefore their turnout may be low (ie. racial discrimination could also
contribute to this feeling). In many African countries, tribal and ethnic conflicts can interfere
with elections. Certain ethnic groups may be attacked or prevented from voting, or not have
their votes counted in order to get the candidate of the rival group elected. Obviously this
constitutes an abuse on one’s human rights, but it is common in some African nations that
elections are marred by voter intimidation, electoral violence or/and fraud.
One issue with resolution: need to clearly outline what can be defined as electoral
interference, does it include voter intimidation, hacking, fraud, etc…?
We would vote for this resolution. Could ask about definition of electoral interference but
no others issues beyond that…

Resolution 5 by Kingdom of Sweden: concerning the current

refugee crisis and the importance of taking action as a means
of achieving the sustainable development goals set in 2016
Norway position: in 2016 Norway admitted (only) 30,000 refugees into the country,
compared with the 160,000 taken in by Sweden next door. Norway’s government, which is
currently a conservative-progress party coalition, has a relatively anti-immigrant outlook.
The Progress party is a right-wing party that was completely anti-immigration prior to the
coalition, their view has softened a bit since. The conservatives have also put into place
legislation that allows for the immediate deportation of Syrian refugees, showing that they
are also rather anti-immigrant. Therefore, Norway has a relatively anti-immigration position.
On other hand, Norway is part of the Schengen area and so has open borders besides from
the border with Russia.
Would not vote for resolution unless amendments are made…
Facts on the immigration crisis:
Refugees are people with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, politics or membership of a particular social group who have been accepted and
recognised as such in their host country. In the EU, the qualification directive sets guidelines
for assigning international protection to those who need it. (EU DEFINITION)
In 2018, there were 634,700 applications for international protection in the EU plus Norway
and Switzerland. This compares with 728,470 applications in 2017 and almost 1.3 million in
2016.
Also in 2018, EU countries granted protection to almost 333,400 asylum seekers, down by
almost 40% on 2017. Almost one in three (29%) of these were from Syria while Afghanistan
(16%) and Iraq (7%) rounded up the top three. Of the 96,100 Syrian citizens granted
international protection in the EU, almost 70% received it in Germany.
In 2018, 471,155 people were denied entry at the EU’s external borders. In the first half of
2019, almost 30,000 people risked their lives reaching Europe by sea, with around 600
feared to have drowned. 116,647 people reached Europe by sea in 2018, compared to over
one million in 2015. The Mediterranean crossing remained deadly however, with 2,277 dead
or missing in 2018, compared to 3,139 a year earlier.
In 2015, 2.2 million people were found to be illegally present in the EU. By 2018, the number
had dropped to just over 600,000. “Being illegally present” can mean a person failed to
register properly or left the member state responsible for processing their asylum claim.
This is not, on its own, grounds for sending them away from the EU.
Migration has been an EU priority for years. Several measures have been taken to manage
the crisis as well as to improve the asylum system. According to the results of
a Eurobarometer poll released in May 2018, 72% of Europeans want the EU to do more
when it comes to immigration.
Another Eurobarometer survey from June 2019 shows that immigration was the fifth biggest
issue that influenced the voting decisions of Europeans in May's EU elections. (34% of
Europeans voted with immigration in mind. The top issues were the economy, climate
change, human rights and democracy, as well as the future of the EU.)
Potential solutions to mitigate effects of the crisis:

 Countries pay certain amount to the EU or UN and they use that money to enhance
peacekeeping operations in conflicted nations, run educational and vocational
programs to give locals skills needed for basic work and for enhanced border control
at borders of countries that are on the Mediterranean ocean. UN could also work
with Libyan government to tighten border control and keep better track of who has
entered the country. The UN could also implement peacekeepers at ports to prevent
smugglers from transporting refugees to Europe in dangerous vessels.
 Regarding the sea crossings, the UN could create a new body which is focused on
refugee allocation and transportation that would work under the UNHCR. This body
would suggest routes to Europe which refugees have to take and which would avoid
refugees crossing the Mediterranean ocean. The posting of military from NATO or
another global security firm may also help to prevent refugees crossing the ocean. By
shutting this route, refugees could be re-routed to Morocco to cross strait of
Gibraltar or, for a small fee, a number of refugees could be put on flights or boats
from Northern African countries and distributed around the European nations.
 European countries could put money into organisations such as EUBAM which trains
Libyan border guards to prevent the entry of criminals or illegal immigrants. They
could also be trained to offer asylum applications to refugees, and only refugees not
economic immigrants.
 UNHCR could give each countries around world a quota of refugees which they are
obliged to take in (by law). The quota would be based on the country’s current
refugee to population ratio, HDI, KOF globalisation index, population density, literary
rate and employment rate, therefore giving each country a fair amount based largely
on their level of development. Another important but harder factor to measure
would be prejudice or discrimination against refugees in different countries around
continent. This could be measured by UNHCR sending out a questionnaire to
refugees who have received asylum in the different UNHCR member states. Based on
their answers, a decision could be made on whether or not it is safe or wise to place
refugees in a country where there is strong anti-refugee sentiment. This should not
 mean these countries should escape. If they do not accept their quota, they should
have to pay a certain amount of money towards the UNHCR which would be used to
allocate refugees in other, more willing countries around world.
 Also, refugees should be allocated ideally to countries which are at a relatively close
proximity to their own, but not at same risk of conflict/disease, etc…This way, after a
period of time, if conflict has concluded, they can move back to their home country
without too much issue, if they would like. Therefore, another factor for the
allocation should be offering refugees countries which are near-ish their country of
origin (ie. there is no logic for example in moving a family from DR Congo all the way
to China – it would in some ways make life harder for refugees then).
 Another system could be to ask refugees for their preference country of reallocation
and then letting them choose from 3 countries that include either their preference
or countries that are close to/similar in preferred factors to that country.
 IOM and UNHCR could work together to create a system whereby refugees are given
a choice of 3 or so different places that they can live in around World. Each country
should have a maximum capacity based on the factors discussed under first red
bullet point. Once the refugee has chosen where they would like to be moved to, the
IOM (cause its worldwide) workers should log on to a database where that refugee
comes from. Depending on where they come from, refugees may be required to
move back to their country of origin after a certain number of years, on a set of
criteria. Such criteria could include the presence of conflict (based on annual death
rate), number of people with access to medical care (ie. relating to diseases) and the
current economic situation in the country (based on annual GDP per capita) and the
voting rights (based on turn-out and policies allowing all ethnic and religious groups
and both genders voting rights.
Issues with resolution:

 A token system does not seem logical. It sounds like carbon trading, but humans are
not like carbon, they are individuals and for a token system to work, there would
have to be a network that tracks refugees locations, shows when they entered
Europe and shows how long they have been in Europe. A token system would only
work if countries could guarantee that they know for sure exactly how many
refugees are in their country and that is a very complicated task.
 Also, the idea that countries that are unwilling to take in refugees could pay
countries that take in more than their fair share is unfair, since a very rich country
could refuse to take in any refugees and pay their way out of it, but the loss of
money would make little difference to them. The point is that by paying another
country for their surpluses, the country unwilling to take in refugees is allowed to
escape by paying their way out but the unbalance of refugees around the continent
would not be alleviated at all. It just gives countries an easy way out.
 The term ‘refugee’ needs to be clearly defined so that all member states have a
coherent understanding of what they are or are not voting for. A refugee is defined
by the UNHCR as being “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their
country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of
 race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political
opinion.”
More solutions:

 Racism and Xenophobia should be listed as criminal offenses in all countries and this
should be required by international law.
 Refugees who are coming from conflicts should be allowed to cross borders without
refusal, at the first border they cross, they could be given a document which states
that they are a refugee and allows them to cross international borders.
 Capital cities around the world should have refugee resettlement offices, whereby
refugees can register their presence in the country and be resettle in current country
or elsewhere if current country already houses many refugees.
 The resolution should suggest enforcing the refugee convention of 1951 and making
it legally binding so that countries have to accept refugees.

The Right of Asylum is that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries
asylum from persecution" is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights of 1948 and supported by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.[4] Under these
agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory
owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds, including race, caste, nationality,
religion, political opinions and participation in any particular social group or social activities.
Therefore countries have to accept refugees or should face sanctions.
Wikipedia: Human rights are rights a person is guaranteed on the basis only that they were
born as a human being. The following are universal human rights that are most relevant to
refugees:

 the right to freedom from torture or degrading treatment

 the right to freedom of opinion and expression

 the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

 the right to life, liberty, and security

 freedom from discrimination

 right to asylum[27]
Refugee law and international human rights law are closely connected in content but differ
in their function. The main difference of their function is the way in which international
refugee law considers state sovereignty while international human rights law do not. [28] One
of the main aspects of international refugee law is non-refoulement which is the basic idea
that a country cannot send back a person to their country of origin if they will face
endangerment upon return. In this case, a certain level of sovereignty is taken away from a
country. This basic right of non-refoulement conflicts with the basic right of sovereign state
to expel any undocumented aliens.
Non-refoulement (/rəˈfuːlmɒ̃ /) is a fundamental principle of international law that forbids a
country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would be
in likely danger of persecution based on "race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion".[1] Unlike political asylum, which applies to those
who can prove a well-grounded fear of persecution based on certain category of persons,
non-refoulement refers to the generic repatriation of people, including refugees into war
zones and other disaster locales. It is a principle of customary international law, as it applies
even to states that are not parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
or its 1967 Protocol.[2] It is also a principle of the trucial law of nations
Sweden amendment:
1. …based upon…
e. each nation’s population density,
f. each nation’s proximity to refugee’s country of origin, with the preference being to
rehome refugee’s in countries close to their country of origin,
g. each nation’s level of anti-immigration sentiment which could be measured through
questionnaires sent out to immigrants living in countries around the world,
2. Implement a new quota system whereby,
a. countries are given a certain number of refugee’s to take in based on the
aforementioned factors under point 1.,
b. countries are obliged by international law, as stated in the the Universal Human
Rights, to allow refugees the right of asylum and thereby grant asylum if refugee’s
life is at a genuine risk,
c. countries that do not accept the quota system shall have to pay bi-annual
instalments to the UNHCR that will provide funding for the refugee resettlement in
alternative nations,

Norway is not part of EU and so was not included in the vote to relocate 120,000 refugees.
This means that Norway does not really have a responsibility to accept any refugees.