Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:18:16.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greenland as a self-governing sub-national territory in international relations: past, current and future perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Maria Ackrén  and
Uffe Jakobsen
Maria Ackrén
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Ilisimatusarfik/University of Greenland, POB 1061, 3900 Nuuk, Greenland (maac@samf.uni.gl)
Uffe Jakobsen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenland was used by the US as a platform and as an extended arm within its security and foreign policy during the World War II and the cold war. After this things changed, although Greenland remained important in Danish-US relations under the umbrella of NATO. Nowadays, the geostrategic position of Greenland between North America and Europe is gaining fresh prominence in the race for natural resources in the Arctic. Many issues arise from the prospective opening of the Arctic, all of which may have fateful impacts on future development in the region. Climate change, claims related to the extension of the continental shelf, exploitation and exploration of natural resources, together with the protection of indigenous peoples are all current issues that must be taken into consideration in the context of security and foreign policy formation in Greenland. The future of the Thule Air Base is also relevant. This article reviews developments from the World War II to the present regarding international relations from a Greenlandic perspective. As a self-governing sub-national territory within the realm of Denmark, Greenland does not have the ultimate decision-making power within foreign and security policy. The new Self-Government Act of 2009, however, gives Greenland some room for manoeuvre in this respect.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 404 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment). 2005. Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). 2011. Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): climate change and the cryosphere. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.Google Scholar
AMSA (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment). 2009. Arctic marine shipping assessment 2009 report. URL: http://www.pame.is/index.php/amsa-2009-report (accessed 31 March 2013).Google Scholar
Archer, C. 2003. Greenland, US bases and missile defence: new two–level negotiations? Cooperation and Conflict 38 (2): 125–147.Google Scholar
Axworthy, L. 2001. Human security and global governance: putting people first. Global Governance 7 (1): 19–23.Google Scholar
Berkman, P.A. and Vylegzhanin, A.N.. 2013. Conclusions: building common interests in the Arctic Ocean. In: Berkman, P.A. and Vylegzhanin, A.N. (editors). Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean. Dordrecht: Springer (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security): 371–404.Google Scholar
Blunden, M. 2012. Geopolitics and the Northern Sea Route. International Affairs 88 (1): 116–129.Google Scholar
Boel, J. and Thuesen, S.T.. 1993. Greenland in the world: the impact of World War II on Danish–Greenlandic relations. In: Cultural and Social Research in Greenland: selected essays 1992–2010. Nuuk: Ilisimatusarfik/Atuagkat: 9–35.Google Scholar
Borgerson, S.G. 2008. Arctic meltdown: the economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Affairs 87 (2): 63–77.Google Scholar
Booth, K. 1991. Security and emancipation. Review of International Studies 17 (4): 313–326.Google Scholar
Boykoff, M.T. 2011. Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, B. 2007 [1983]. People, states and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post–cold war era. Colchester: ECPR Press (ECPR Press Classics).Google Scholar
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., and de Wilde, J.. 1998. Security: a new framework for analysis. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. 1998. On democracy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Denmark. 2009. Danish defence agreement 2010–2014. URL: http://www.fmn.dk/nyheder/Documents/danish-defence-agreement-2010-2014-english.pdf (accessed 31 March 2013).Google Scholar
Denmark (Miljøministeriet) [Ministry of Environment]. 2009. Ny indsats mod forurening i Grønland [New actions against pollution in Greenland]. URL: http://mim.dk/Nyheder/2009 (accessed 22 September 2012).Google Scholar
Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. 2011. Kingdom of Denmark strategy for the Arctic 2011–2020. Copenhagen: Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Nuuk: Government of Greenland, Department of Foreign Affairs; Tórshavn: Government of the Faroes, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
Floyd, R. 2007. Human security and the Copenhagen School's securitization approach: conceptualizing human security as a securitization move. Human Security Journal 5: 38–49.Google Scholar
Gallie, W.B. 1956. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–198.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 2009. The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Greenland. 2009. Act on Greenland Self–Government (Act 473, 12 June 2009). URL: http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Engelske-tekster/Act%20on%20Greenland.pdf (accessed 11 October 2012).Google Scholar
Greenland. 2011. Udenrigspolitisk strategi og redegørelse 2011 [Foreign policy strategy and report]. Nuuk: Naalakkersuisut – Governmment of Greenland.Google Scholar
Greenland. 2012. Vores fremtid – dit og mit ansvar – på vej mod 2025 [Our future – your and my responsibility – on the road to 2025]. Nuuk: Naalakkersuisut – Governmment of Greenland.Google Scholar
Greenland. 2013. Koalitionsaftale 2013–2017: Et samlet land – et samlet folk [Coalition agreement 2013–2017: A united country – a united people]. Nuuk: Naalakkersuisut – Governmment of Greenland.Google Scholar
Hart, A., Bruce, J. and Steven, D.. 2012. Chill out: why cooperation is balancing conflict among major powers in the new Arctic. Managing Global Order, May, 2012Google Scholar
Heininen, L. 2010. Globalization and security in the circumpolar north. In: Heininen, L. and Southcott, C. (editors.). Globalization and the circumpolar north. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press: 221–264.Google Scholar
Heininen, L. 2012. State of the Arctic strategies and policies: a summary. In: Heininen, L. (editor). Arctic Yearbook 2012. (Akureyri: Northern Research Forum): 2–45.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree on climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Igaliku Agreement, 6 August 2004. Bekendtgørelse af aftale af 6. august 2004 med Amerikas Forenede Stater om ændring og supplering af overenskomst af 27. april 1951 om forsvaret af Grønland [Announcement of agreement of 6 August 2004 with the United States of America about changes and supplements of agreement of 27 April 1951 about the defence of Greenland]. URL: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=23078&exp=1 (accessed 11 October 2012).Google Scholar
Jakobson, L. 2010. China prepares for an ice–free Arctic. Stockholm: SIPRI (SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security, 2010/2).Google Scholar
Jakobson, L. and Peng, J.. 2012. China's Arctic aspirations. Stockholm: SIPRI (SIPRI Policy Paper, 34).Google Scholar
Jákupsstovu, B. and Berg, R.. 2012. The Faroe Islands’ security policy in a process of devolution. Stjórnmál and Stjórnsýsla 2 (2): 413–430.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, H.J and Rahbek–Clemmensen, J.. 2009. Keep It cool! Four scenarios for the Danish armed forces in Greenland in 2030. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Military Studies.Google Scholar
Koivurova, T. 2011. Scramble for resources or orderly development: what is happening in the Arctic? In: Salmela, L. (editor) Nordic cooperation and the far north. Helsinki: National Defence University, Department of Strategic and Defence Studies, Series 2: Research Report No 46: 1–14.Google Scholar
Kraska, J. 2011. The new Arctic geography and U.S. strategy. In: Kraska, J. (editor). Arctic security in an age of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 244–266.Google Scholar
Laruelle, M. 2011. International law and geographical representations: the Russian stance on territorial conflicts in the Arctic. In: Salmela, L. (editor). Nordic cooperation and the far north. Helsinki: National Defence University, Department of Strategic and Defence Studies, Series 2: Research Report No 46: 15–36.Google Scholar
Loukacheva, N. 2007. The Arctic promise: legal and political autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark (including the Home Rule of Greenland) and the Government of the United States of America concerning use of Sondrestrom aviation facility, Kulusuk airfield and other matters related to United States military activities in Greenland. 1991 (13 March 1991). United Nations Treaty Series No. 28453.Google Scholar
NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center). 2013. NSIDC Sea ice index 2013. Boulder CO: National Snow and Ice Data Center. URL: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ (accessed 22 March 2013).Google Scholar
Olsen, I.H. 2013. Opening remarks. In: Berkman, P.A. and Vylegzhanin, A.N. (editors). Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean. Dordrecht: Springer (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security): 7–10.Google Scholar
Østreng, W. 1992. Political–military relations among the ice states: the conceptual basis of state behaviour. In: Griffiths, F. (editor) Arctic alternatives: civility or militarism in the circumpolar Google Scholar
Paris, R. 2001. Human security: paradigm shift or hot air? International Security 26 (2): 87–102.Google Scholar
Petersen, N. 2011. The Arctic challenge to Danish foreign and security policy. In: Kraska, J. (editor). Arctic security in an age of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 145–165.Google Scholar
Rahbek–Clemmensen, J., Larsen, E.S. and Rasmussen, M.V.. 2012. Forsvaret i Arktis: suverænitet, samarbejde og sikkerhed [The defence in the Arctic: sovereignty, cooperation and security]. Copenhagen: Centre for Military Studies.Google Scholar
Steinicke, S. and Albrecht, S.. 2012. Search and rescue in the Arctic. Berlin: SWP (Working Paper SG 2).Google Scholar
UNDP. 1994. Human development report 1994. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
UNFCCC. 1994. United Nations: framework convention on climate change URL: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php (accessed 31 March 2013).Google Scholar
Williams, P.D. 2013. Security studies: an introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Worm, A. 2011. Arctic security: a Greenlandic perspective. In: Kraska, J. (editor). Arctic security in an age of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 166–173.Google Scholar
Young, O.R. 2011. Arctic futures: the politics of transformation. In: Kraska, J. (editor). Arctic security in an age of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: xxi–xxvii.Google Scholar
Young, O.R. and Cherkasov, A.I.. 1992. International co–operation in the Arctic: opportunities and constraints. In: Griffiths, F. (editor). Arctic alternatives: civility or militarism in the circumpolar north. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar