One of the main attractions for tourists visiting Svalbard, Norway, are polar bears. The polar bear is a vulnerable species, dependent on sea ice to survive as this is where they hunt, wander and raise their cubs. Ship-based tourism poses a number of threats mainly due to the disturbances caused by the presence of ships, damage of critical habitats and the increasing interactions and deadly conflicts between humans and polar bears. Appropriate and effective legislation based on scientific knowledge of the impacts of ship-based tourism on polar bears is necessary to ensure sustainable tourism and environmental protection. Species protection and habitat conservation is not an issue isolated to Svalbard or the polar bears but rather just one part of the pressing global issue concerning loss of biodiversity, which is one of the greatest threats to humankind. The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) aims to ensure the conservation of wild flora and fauna species and their habitats. At the time of signing, the Norwegian Government excluded Svalbard from the application of the Bern Convention, ensuring that national conservation policies for Svalbard would be promoted. The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act is the main act regulating environmental protection on Svalbard, including both general principles and specific provisions regarding species and habitat protection. This paper explores the various needs of the polar bear population in Svalbard and the impacts caused by ship-based tourism. The Bern Convention’s provisions relating to the identified threats posed by ship-based tourism are examined and compared with the corresponding provisions in the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act. Moreover, this paper analyses the potential benefits that could arise from the application of the Bern Convention to the Svalbard territory. This paper concludes that the protection of the polar bears could, de jure, be strengthened by the Bern Convention, mainly due to the extensive interpretation of the types of activities that should be prohibited by signatory states. However, the Bern Convention can only be enforced by non-binding mechanisms and it is therefore unlikely that the application of the convention would lead to stronger protection of the polar bears than that which is provided by national legislation. The protection of the polar bear from threats caused by ship-based tourism would therefore, de facto, most likely not be strengthened by the application of the Bern Convention.