Introduction: indigenous self-governance in the Arctic States

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous
• self-governance
• Arctic
• states

The theme of this special issue is indigenous self-governance in Arctic states. A common characteristic of the states that are partly located in the Arctic – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, USA – is that they all have indigenous peoples, and all have some form of self-government. There has been relatively little research on the similarities and differences between the sub-state autonomy structures within the Arctic states from a political science perspective (although with important exceptions, see below). This is somewhat surprising given the growing interest in the Arctic region during the last 15 years, where some of these autonomous units play an increasingly important role. This special issue asks how different are these self-governing units? How did they evolve into their current form? Do they have a distinct Arctic indigenous character?¹

Sub-state units in the Arctic have different kinds and degrees of political autonomy within the states of which they are part. Some – the Faroe Islands (non-indigenous people) and Greenland – have significant political autonomy and could in principle opt for independence within a relatively short time. Others – Indigenous peoples in Alaska, Canada and Russia – have a degree of autonomy within the structures of the constitution, which do not always fit neatly within these same constitutional structures. Others yet again – Sámi in Finland, Norway and Sweden – have political autonomy through non-territorial based representation, which go beyond the Arctic areas. This special issue delves into the reasons for the differences and similarities between the political autonomy arrangements of these sub-state units in the Arctic. The cases are quite different. They include territorial vs non-territorial autonomy (however, some contributions to this special issue argue that the standard model of non-territorial governance does not apply), extensive autonomy vs. limited autonomy, different degrees of fit with formal state structures, Indigenous groups aiming for formal independence vs. aiming for autonomy and influence within their state structures. The population of the Faroe Islands is not an Indigenous people. Whether this has made a difference in the way political autonomy has developed compared with the other cases studied will be an interesting part of the analysis in this special issue.

The different kinds of Indigenous self-government in the Arctic have been studied before. Koukkanen has studied several Indigenous autonomous units in the Arctic in her important book Restructuring Relations: Indigenous Self-Determination, Governance and Gender. In her book she engages in three interrelated, but distinct lines of investigation. She theorises indigenous self-government as a fundamental value, examines the gender regimes of the existing self-governing structures in Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia, and interrogates the relationship between Indigenous self-determination, self-government and institutions.² The studies show that Indigenous peoples have different agendas, even if most seek some control over their social, cultural, political and economic development and management of ancestral territories.³

The present special issue covers the development of autonomous units within most of the Arctic states. Moreover, it is interested in whether the different forms of self-government have features in common of a distinct Arctic Indigenous form. In addressing these issues, it engages with two sets of literature which are particularly relevant for this field. First, there is the literature on institutional solutions for multinational societies, in particular with regard to the distinction between territorial and non-territorial forms of governance. A key point in this literature is that political autonomy can take many different forms. At the one extreme, it can be derivative from the constitutional structures of the state of which it is part such as unitary and federal states.⁴ At the other extreme, the autonomy can be non-territorially based, and thus not tied to the state structures in a simple way. This can be due to the dispersion of the Indigenous populations concerned on the territory of the state.⁵ Hybrids between the two, or political autonomy which is only partially derivative of state structures, are also possible. In addition, the institutional outcomes are also shaped by whether self-government arrangements are a response to aspirations for future independence or rather to Indigenous demands for more control in particular (functional) areas. The special issue looks into how and why the particular form was chosen in the Arctic states examined. It should be noted that the focus on the Arctic also means that the special issue does not make claims about whether the solutions found in the Arctic are in some ways typical of, let alone better than, the ones found elsewhere in the world.

Second, there is the literature on Indigenous political governance. The focus here is on how Indigenous people are enacting political agency rather than being passive receivers of political decisions from the dominant state elites. This literature sees the interaction between Indigenous peoples and the states as dynamic and ongoing; Indigenous people are not on verge of disappearing from the political stage but rather engaged in a politics of ‘Survivance’ (native presence and actuality), which should be recognised within political science.⁶ Moreover, although Indigenous people seek equality, their aims, unlike other ethnic groups, often include some kind of ‘sovereign’ government within their existing states.⁷ A central question is whether the set up and values of the autonomous political structures in the Arctic are different from those of the state of which they are part; in other words, whether the Indigenous aspirations on which they are based make for a special kind of political autonomy in the Arctic? How salient is the Indigenous identity in the development of the autonomous structures? Are the self-government institutions, for example, marked by consensual politics as opposed to the common government-opposition politics as is common in Western political systems?⁸ This will be explored in the special issue.

While the questions and concepts arising from these two sets of literatures will be addressed here and in the individual articles, the broader framework for analysing and comparing the different paths taken by the autonomous units will be historical institutionalism (HI), which can integrate the issues raised in the two sets of literatures above.⁹ The idea is that HI is well suited for conceptually addressing questions about the state of affairs, change and continuity and drivers of change. HI is also a suitable framework for taking into account the salience of political identity in institutional developments.¹⁰ Even if the empowerment of Indigenous peoples through the UNDRIP and ILO conventions is important, the concrete establishment of Indigenous autonomy comes out of the interaction within the states structures of which they are part. An HI framework provides concepts to address the importance of this context, central historical events, goal-seeking political actors and their identity. In addition, the application of HI allows an integration of the agency of Indigenous peoples into theoretical approaches where this has previously been absent.¹¹ The individual articles are also left open for the possibility that elements from the HI framework may not turn out to explain the institutional outcomes analysed, or not fully so.

The core elements from historical institutionalism are¹²

• The Institutions (that is the self-governing units in the Arctic) emerge as a result of specific critical junctures in each case.

• The critical junctures allow for many possible (institutional) outcomes for the autonomous units in case.

• The specific historical, political context explains the actual (institutional) outcomes of the critical junctures in relation to the five units examined.

• The decisive element in this historical/political context is political power (goal-seeking political actors and structures). Main actors are the Indigenous peoples and the states of which they are part.

• Once established, there is path dependency in the way these (autonomous) institutions have developed, possibly affected by unintended consequences. Once chosen, institutions yield increasing returns. This means that political actors adapt to these paths and direct their political energy towards achieving their goals herein. This strengthens and reinforces the structures.

• This path dependency may then be broken/threatened again by new critical junctures which restart the process.

While these classical HI elements will be the point of departure in the analyses, new HI approaches, which challenge the dual model with its clear break between stasis during path dependency and dynamism during critical junctures, will also be considered when it is relevant. According to these newer approaches, change can be both endogenous and incremental rather than (as in the traditional punctuated equilibrium model) exogenous and sudden. In fact, all institutions can be seen as containing dynamic, endogenous sources of contestation.¹³ So, it is both possible that change is sudden (as a consequence of critical junctures) and that it is gradual (as a consequence of negative feed-back to the ‘path’). These theoretical possibilities provide us with a language to talk about change.

Taken together, our theoretical perspectives will thus cover different aspects of the institutional outcomes. On the one hand, we include the structural constraints that limit the choices available to political actors. Such constraints may be geographical, such as settlement patterns, or political, such as the constitutional framework of the state in which the autonomy arrangements are implemented. On the other hand, historical institutionalism highlights the choices made by political actors at critical junctures. Thus, our starting point is that political actors matter, even though structural constraints – to a varying extent – may limit their choices.

The individual articles will first explore the character of the different politically autonomous units. What form (formal, informal) does it take and what kind of powers does it have? For Trinn and Schulte, the level of self-rule of a putative autonomous unit is measured by two dimensions 1) the scope of competences that a regional unit enjoys, and 2) the relative independence of regional institutions which determines whether competences can be put into practice.¹⁴ For measuring competences, one should take into account:

the scope of the authoritative powers of the regional legislative and executive in areas of economics, cultural-educational, social, or internal security policy, without the central government having the right to intervene. Second, we measure the fiscal competence achieved through the setting and raising of regional taxes. In the institutional dimension, we also include two indicators: the existence of a directly elected assembly and of a regional executive … directly elected within the subnational entity or emanates from the regional assembly.¹⁵

In the special issue, we will use Trinn and Schulte’s two dimensions to characterise the level of autonomy of each self-governing unit. These questions work as stepping-stones for the second question, which is the question of why the self-government structures have the form and powers that they have.

In the first article ‘The Development of Greenland’s Self-Government and Independence in the Shadow of the Unitary State’ Jakobsen and Larsen investigate whether the development of Greenland’s autonomy over the past 40 years can be fruitfully understood as a case of path dependency. It is shown that the 1979 Home Rule Act followed from a critical juncture triggered by the Greenlandic ‘no’-vote on European Union membership. The subsequent 2009 Greenland Self Government Act (GSGA) is seen as a result of endogenous change within a path dependency flowing from the Home Rule Act: the growth of a stronger Greenlandic political identity which led to demands for the recognition of Greenlanders as a people with a right to self-determination. There is a potential tension between path dependency arising from the GSGA and intensified Greenlandic expressions of political identity.

In her article ‘Faroese Self-Government: Development over Time and Effects of Critical Junctures’, West analyses processes that led to the establishment of Home Rule in 1948 within the Danish realm and to adjustments in 2005 as results of critical junctures and path dependency. Since 1948 the Faroe Islands have built a dynamic internal autonomy with limited room for manoeuvres at the international level. After the 2005 adjustments, however, the possibilities of the Faroe Islands to act at the international level have been enhanced in terms of access to the international system in cases of international agreements, appointments of foreign representatives and membership of international organisations.

In the article ‘Inuit autonomy in the Canadian Arctic: Comparing treaty federalism in Nunavut and Nunatsiavut’, Papillon and Rodon contrast the experiences of the Nunavut government (a public government administering a territory with an Inuit majority) and the Nunatsiavut government (an Inuit only government nested within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador) which emerged out of similar processes of treaty negotiation. It is argued that two factors are particularly relevant to understanding their different trajectories. First is the timing of the treaty negotiations, which opened different institutional possibilities at critical junctures (the extractive conflicts of the 1960s-70s, the 1982 Constitution Act and the 1995 federal self-government policy). Second is the demographic differences and the nature of Canadian federalism which structured the choices that were made. The comparison illustrates the diversity of institutional arrangements related to Inuit autonomy in Canada.

Wilson’s and Fondahl’s article ‘Ethnofederalism and Indigenous Self-Determination in Northern Canada and the Russia’ compares the evolution of Indigenous governance structures in Nunavik (Québec) and Sahka (Yakutia). A special focus is whether Indigenous peoples in these jurisdictions benefitted from titular nationalities efforts to enhance their own autonomy. It is argued that two critical junctures mobilised Indigenous peoples: for Nunavik the 1973 James Bay hydro-electric project and for Sahka (Yakutia) the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the first case, regional administrative institutions and an Inuit-led development corporation was established. In the second case, the resurgence of nationalist sentiments culminated in the creation of new institutions designed to protect Indigenous land rights.

Ackrén’s article concerns ‘The Natural Resource Management in Nunavut and Greenland – as Perspective through Historical Institutionalism’. Nunavut and Greenland are two self-governing units with large endowments of natural resources. Nunavut is a territory within the Canadian federal state and Greenland has self-government within the Kingdom of Denmark. The land claims in Canada have given Nunavut some influence in the management of natural resources, while Greenland has taken control over its subterranean resources through extended self-government in 2009. The broader institutional context has been marked by Greenland’s attempts to become independent in the future while Nunavut is trying to to navigate in a more complex state structure with various kinds of self-governance.

Josefsen’s and Saglie’s article, ‘The Sámi Parliament in Norway: a “breaking in perspective”’, focuses on how the Sámediggi has developed as an institution for Sámi self-determination, the kind of self-determination being developed and the features it has, and why the model of self-determination is not founded on territorial autonomy and self-rule, but still has a territorial basis. The Sámediggi’s scope of competences is narrow, while its independence is strong. The article argues that development of Indigenous self-determination should be understood as a product of two factors: the first is ethnogeography, as the Sámi people are dispersed. The second is the critical juncture of the Alta conflict in the late 1970s-early 1980s which resulted in a paradigm shift in the Norwegian state’s Sámi policy.

In her article ‘Arctic Indigenous Representation in National Parliaments’, Harder investigates how Indigenous peoples in the self-governing territories in the Arctic states are represented at the national level, distinguishing between formal, descriptive and substantive representation. Reviewing the literature, she reveals the differences between national representation of Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada, in Greenland, and in Finland, Norway and Sweden. In conclusion, there is no unique nor particular Arctic model of Indigenous representation in national parliaments in the Arctic states.

There are also a number of aligned papers, which, although not dealing specifically with the issue of Indigenous Self-Government in the Arctic States and drawing on the HI framework outlined above, are nevertheless highly relevant in this context. In the article ‘Culturalizing Indigenous Self-Determination: Sámi Cultural Autonomy in Finland’, Kuokkanen argues, employing a structural injustice analysis, that the prevailing framework for Sámi cultural autonomy in Finland acts as a significant barrier to the effective realisation and practice of the rights to Indigenous self-determination. It is shown that this is due to the relegating of the Sámi people to the status of a culture or a minority rather than acknowledging them as a distinct people or polity. Only the latter will grant international rights to self-determination and ownership of land and resources.

In the article ‘Generalised trust in Greenland – institutions and identity matter’ Najaaraq Demant-Poort investigates the relations between generalised trust and institutional trust in Greenland compared to Denmark and other Nordic countries. This is the first time a study of this kind has been carried out. The outcome shows that Greenland is one of the 10–12 most trusting countries on a global scale, but lower than the level of Denmark.

Also, Arnfjord, Daverkosen and Jonsson pave new paths for research in Greenland in their contribution ‘Attitudes towards people with disabilities in Greenland and the need for empowered changes’. Here the authors present and discuss a survey on historical traces and the current conditions in order to create public awareness of disabilities and a more critical attitude towards disabled people that have been overlooked as a research topic in Greenland and as an object of empowerment.

In her article, ‘Geopolitics, diplomacy, or idealistic research? Framing the research community in Ny-Ålesund case study of the relationship between research and geopolitics’, Vold Hansen explores how the former mining town of Ny-Ålesund in Svalbard has evolved into an international research community, and in doing so, bringing to light the tensions that exist between scientific activities, geopolitics and sovereignty claims in the Arctic. Following the theme of geopolitical challenges, Andreeva and Rottem, in their article ‘How and why the Arctic Council survived until now – An analysis of the transition in chairship between Russia and Norway’, explores a turbulent period (2022–2023) in the history of the Arctic Council and examines how it has endured.

While there are a number of articles that sit outside of the special issue theme they make a welcome addition to this volume. These include Long, Hodgson-Johnston and Nielsen, who in their article, ‘The Australian Ice Core Programme: History, Context, and Bibliometric Analysis’ present a bibliometric analysis of Australian-authored and/or funded ice core publications from within the Australian Antarctic Territory over the programme’s 50-year life-span. Also, Makanse, in her article, ‘Contextualising Antarctic Tourism Diversification: Tourism Management Implications from Multinational Policy Debates’, examines Antarctic tourism policy (1961 to 2022) to help understand Antarctic tourism diversification overtime. Ingvarsdóttira and Hauksdóttir, in their article, ‘Science diplomacy for stronger bilateral relations? The role of Arctic science in Iceland’s relations with Japan and China’, utilise a comparative case study of aurora borealis research carried out by China and Japan to help situate bilateral relations with their Icelandic host. Finally, LaFortune and Landriault unpack the revelation that former U.S. President Trump wanted the United States to purchase Greenland in their article, ‘The Coverage from Russian Press Agencies of the Greenland Purchase Story’.

Front cover

Self-Government Administration Building, Nuuk, Greenland (Photo Credit: Uffe Jakobsen).

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for insightful and helpful comments on all the articles in this issue. Henrik Larsen and Uffe Jakobsen would also like to thank the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science for the grant for the network project “Self-Governing Areas in the Arctic with Special Reference to Similarities Differences between the Danish Federacy and Areas in Canada, Norway and Russia” during the period 2020–2023 (Ref. no.: 0192-00022B. Grant holder Henrik Larsen). The grant supported part of the research for the articles by Maria Ackrén, Uffe Jakobsen, Henrik Larsen, Martin Papillon, Thierry Rodon, Jo Saglie and Hallbera West who were participants in the network.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ The idea of a special issue on this theme in The Polar Journal originated in the network ‘Self-Governing Areas in the Arctic with Special Reference to Similarities and Differences between the Danish Federacy and Areas in Canada, Norway and Russia’ in the period 2020–2022. Participants were Maria Ackrén, Uffe Jakobsen, Henrik Larsen, Martin Papillon, Thierry Rodon, Jo Saglie and Hallbera West.

² Kuokkanen, Restructuring Relations, 19.

³ Ibid. See also Berg-Nordlie, Saglie and Sullivan, Indigenous Politics, 4–5.

⁴ See Stepan et al., Crafting State Nations, for the different kinds of solutions tied to state structures.

⁵ See for example Coakley, Nationalism, Ethnicity and the State; Coakley, ‘Introduction’; Osipov, “Mapping Non-Territorial Autonomy Arrangements.”

⁶ Witmer et al., “Introduction to special issue on Indigenous Politics, 3–4.”

⁷ Ibid., 5.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ For a prime example of the use of HI in the analysis of the evolution of three ‘nested’. Inuit regions in the Canadian Arctic, see Wilson et al., Nested Federalism and Inuit Governance.

¹⁰ For approaches which analyse the relationship between institutions and how identities are. mobilised and transformed see Lecours, Nationalism; Basta, The Symbolic State Minority Recognition; Nadasdy, Sovereignty’s Entailments.

¹¹ Witmer et al., “Introduction to special issue on Indigenous Politics”, 5–6.

¹² The following is based on Cappochia and Kelemen, ‘The Study of Critical Junctures’; Pierson, ‘Increasing Returns’; Pollack, ‘Rational Choice and Historical Institutionalism’; Mahoney and Thelen, Explaining Institutional Change; Steinmo et al., Structuring Politics.

¹³ Pollack, “Rational Choice and Historical Institutionalism,” 112–113; Mahoney and Thelen, Explaining Institutional Change 2010,.

¹⁴ Trinn and Schulte, “Untangling territorial self-governance,” 10.

¹⁵ Ibid.