ksu, I appreciate your in-depth-analysis of my situation in Spitsbergen, and everything you say is right, but it doesn't make my position wrong.
In your link to the Spitsbergen treaty it says right in the first paragraph:
"The exercise of sovereignty is, however, subject to certain stipulations, and not all Norwegian law applies."
The usual term for places like Barentsburg would be
"de jure under Norwegian control, de facto under Russian control".
In the 100 years since taking over Barentsburg et al. from the Dutch, it has been self-governed by the Russians, and there were only two cases (one murder, one major fire, both in the last 10 years) when the Norwegian Governor exercised some authority there.
In any case, Spitsbergen's legal situation is
unique in the world, meaning it is only possible to compare some aspects - but never all aspects - with e.g. the division of Antarctica, or mining & oil exploration in Africa, Arabia, Mongolia, or partly (un-)recognized territories like Transnistria, or the correct naming of Burma/Myanmar, or of course: Norway.
The Spitsbergen Treaty has been signed by a small minority of the world's nations only (ca. 40), but they happen to be the more powerful.
I didn't bring up the supra-national
law discussion, but I noted that you avoided
the issue of the informal Norwegian
"Jante's law" (an anti-arrogance-attitude, typical for Scandinavia, which the aggressive Portuguese migrant worker tried to claim for himself, instead of just doing his service job).
My three experiences in Spitsbergen (transit to North Pole) were indeed
"coloured" as you suspect: by the hoi polloi quality of tourism there.
I would be happy to limit the law discussion to the case itself
Here you say you are sceptic,
ksu, about jurisdiction of a
"a Swedish/Belgian company in the US". OK. Payment with a US credit card is one argument I raise. And what about US-mother company Carlson? After all, the thread has just been moved here. (Thanks ^)
No, Svalbard is not "technically (...) in a Norwegian special area". Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway, as the quote from the Svalbard treaty, which I quoted in my previous post, states ("the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen") . However, in this particular part of Norway, the citizens of certain other countries have the same rights as Norwegian citizens have, and the treaty puts some restrictions on the use e.g. for military purposes and on things like taxation. This special status, as defined by the treaty, doesn't make it "technically" anything but Norwegian. "Full and absolute sovereignity" does not mean "partly Russian", and Svalbard is certainly part of Norway when it comes to legal authority.
The OP's experience of being a victim of a crime by a hotel employee, and his dissatisfaction of not being sufficiently helped by the (absent) hotel manager is certainly understandable, but somehow I think that the OP's somewhat personal interpretation of current law on Svalbard, including his misunderstandings about the legal status of the archipelago is coloured by that dissatisfaction.
I am still not convinced that suing a Swedish/Belgian company in the US for neglicence by a manager working at a property under Norwegian jurisdiction, where the neglicence concerns an alleged criminal act by an employee, that has not been reported to the local police. But I might be wrong in that, and I am certainly interested in hearing the outcome.