Abstract
The chapter reviews Norwegian geopolitics of High North security, sovereignty, and sustainable development from the end of the Cold War to the end of the second decade of the new millennium. The chapter pays particular attention to the consequences of Norway being a small power, but a large coastal state. The formulation of High North policies is traced through the development of respective documents and related to domestic political processes. The policies are characterized by certain internal tensions, around which they have varied over time and which have become more pronounced. As the overall political situation in the High North deteriorates, this might hamper Norway’s ability to remain the pivotal supporter of international cooperation in the Arctic it has been so far.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
All translations from Norwegian sources are my own.
- 4.
The Spitzbergen Treaty of 1920 establishes “full and absolute [Norwegian] sovereignty” over the Archipelago (§1).
- 5.
By virtue of its possessions in the South Polar Sea and its land claims on Antarctica, it is of course also a coastal state there and the only true ‘bi-polar’ state (cf. Jensen 2016).
- 6.
‘Baseline’ is used here in the legal sense of the Law of the Sea denoting the line on the basis of which the extent of maritime zones is defined (UNCLOS: §5).
- 7.
Against fierce resistance the government decided to merge the counties of Finnmark and Troms in 2020.
- 8.
It was part of Denmark until 1814, in a forced union with Sweden until 1905, and bordered the Soviet Union until the latter’s dissolution 1991 and Russia since then.
- 9.
- 10.
On the tension between sustainability and oil and gas development in the Arctic see Mikkelsen and Langhelle (2008).
- 11.
Members were Norway, Finland, Sweden, Russia and the EU. Young (1998) provides a comprehensive and authoritative account of the emergence of the Barents Euro-Arctic cooperation and the Norwegian role in it.
- 12.
Bilateral cooperation existed for the common management of fisheries in the Barents Sea since the 70s, for environmental protection since 1988. Bilateral cooperation on nuclear safety was added in 1995.
- 13.
- 14.
While the overall result with 52% against EU-membership was a close call, the rejection of membership in the North reached over 75%.
- 15.
The Arctic Eight are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, USA, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, and Iceland.
- 16.
This section follows Young’s (1998) comprehensive account which also covers early cooperation under the AEPS.
- 17.
For the emergence of the AC cf. Axworthy and Dean (2013).
- 18.
On the integration of sustainable development in AEPS and AC see Humrich (2018: 33-37).
- 19.
Though, as Hønneland emphasizes, cooperation on nuclear safety was very successful (2011: 266).
- 20.
An internally commissioned evaluation of the AC (Haavisto 2001), provided respective background analysis and proposals.
- 21.
- 22.
While the High North is not one of the 17 policy fields covered in one chapter each, already the first chapter promises an active High North policy and subsequent chapters elaborate in their respective context.
- 23.
It identifies seven priorities for the High North: the reliable and predictable exercise of sovereign authority, knowledge development, environmental stewardship, petroleum and business development in the High North, the safeguarding of indigenous livelihoods and culture, the development of people-to-people cooperation in the High North, as well as strengthening cooperation with Russia.
- 24.
For the respective process see Sellheim (2012).
- 25.
Norway, Russia, USA, Canada, and Denmark/Greenland.
- 26.
The re-location to Reitan is estimated to save more than 500 million NOK over the next 20 years, necessary investments already subtracted (NMoD 2008: 95).
- 27.
At the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Northern Norwegian city of Kirkenes from German occupation in October 2019, then Norwegian Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide for instance explicitly declared that Russia was not perceived as posing a threat to Norway.
- 28.
The action was taken by Greenpeace together with the Norwegian organization Natur og ungdom.
References
Axworthy, T. S., & Dean, R. (2013). Changing the arctic paradigm from Cold War to cooperation: How Canada’s indigenous leaders shaped the Arctic Council. The Yearbook of Polar Law, 5, 7–43.
Berg, R. (2016). Norsk Utanrikspolitikk etter 1814. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.
Blunden, M. (2009). The new problem of Arctic stability. Survival, 51(5), 121–142.
Dodds, K. (2013). The Ilulissat Declaration (2008): The Arctic states, ‘Law of the Sea’, and Arctic Ocean. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 33(2), 45–55.
Ebinger, C. K., & Zambetakis, E. (2009). The geopolitics of Arctic melt. International Affairs, 85(6), 1215–1232.
Flikke, G. (2011). Norway and the Arctic: Between multilateral governance and geopolitics. In J. Kraska (Ed.), Arctic security in an age of climate change (pp. 64–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forsvarssjefen.(2019). Et styrket Forsvar. Oslo: Forsvarsjefens Fagmilitære Råd.
Gullestad, P., Aglen, A., Bjordal, Å., Blom, G., Johansen, S., Krog, J., et al. (2014). Changing attitudes 1970–2012: Evolution of the Norwegian management framework to prevent overfishing and to secure long-term sustainability. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(2), 173–182.
Haavisto, P. (2001). Review of the Arctic Council’s structures. Consultant’s study. Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Hønneland, G. (2014). Norway’s High Arctic policy. In R. W. Murray & A. Dey Nuttal (Eds.), International Relations and the Arctic. Understanding policy and governance (pp. 235–261). Amherst/NY: Cambria Press.
Hønneland, G. (2011). Kompromiss als Routine. Russland, Norwegen und die Barentssee. Osteuropa, 61(2–3), 257–270.
Humrich, C. (2018). Sustainable development in Arctic international environmental cooperation and the governance of hydrocarbon-related activities. In C. Pelaudeix & E. M. Basse (Eds.), Governance of Arctic offshore oil and gas (pp. 31–46). London: Routledge.
Jensen, L. C. (2016). From the High North to the Low South: Bipolar Norway’s Antarctic strategy. The Polar Journal, 6(2), 273–290.
Jensen, L. C., & Hønneland, G. (2011). Framing the High North: Public discourses in Norway after 2000. Acta Borealia, 28(1), 37–54.
Keil, K. (2014). The Arctic—A new region of conflict? the case of oil and gas. Cooperation and Conflict, 49(2), 162–190.
Leira, H., Borchgrevink, A., Græger, N., Melchior, A., Stamnes, E., & Øverland, I. (2007). Norske selvbilder og norsk utenrikspolitik. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
Lodgaard, S. (2005). Ny norsk politikk i nord. https://www.nupi.no/nupi_school/HHD-Artikler/20082/Ny-norsk-politikk-i-nord. Accessed 20 Jan 2020.
Mikkelsen, A., & Langhelle, O. (Eds.). (2008). Arctic oil and gas. Sustainability at risk?. London: Routledge.
Moe, A., Fjærtoft, D., & Øverland, I. (2011). Space and timing: Why was the Barents Sea delimitation dispute resolved in 2010? Polar Geography, 34(3), 145–162.
NMoD.(2001). Omleggingen av Forsvaret i Perioden 2002–2005. St.prp. nr. 45 (2000-2001). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.
NMoD.(2004). Den videre Moderniseringen av Forsvaret i perioden 2005–2008. St.prp. nr. 42 (2003–2004). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.
NMoD.(2008). Et Forsvar til Vern om Norges Sikkerhet, Interesser og Verdier. St.prp. nr. 48 (2007–2008). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.
NMoD.(2015). Kampkraft og Bærekraft. Langtidsplan for Forsvarssektoren. St.prop. nr 151S (2015–2016). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.
NMoFA.(2005). Muligheter og Utfordringer i Nord. St.meld.Nr. 30 (2004–2005). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
NMoFA.(2006). The Norwegian High North Strategy. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
NMoFA.(2009). New Building Blocks in the North. The next Step in the Government’s High North Strategy. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
NMoFA.(2011). The High North. Visions and Strategies. St.meld.Nr. 7 (2011–2012). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
NMoFA.(2014). Nordkloden. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Norges Regjering. (2017). Nordområdestrategi. Mellom geopolitikk of samfunnsutvikling. Oslo: Departemene.
NOU.(2000). Et Nytt Forsvar. Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2000:32. Oslo: Statens Fortvaltningstjeneste, Informasjonsforvaltning.
NOU.(2003). Mot Nord!‘. Utfordringer og Muligheter i Nordområdene. Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2000:32. Oslo: Statens Fortvaltningstjeneste, Informasjonsforvaltning.
Nyhamar, T. (2004). Security policies from constraints to choice. In K. Heidar (Ed.), Nordic Politics. Comparative Perspectives (pp. 228–246). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Østhagen, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2019). Why is the European Union challenging Norway over snow crab? Svalbard, special interests, and Arctic governance. Ocean Development and International Law, 50(2–3), 190–208.
Østhagen, A., Levi Sharp, G., & Sigurd Hilde, P. (2018). At opposite poles: Canada’s and Norway’s approaches to security in the Arctic. The Polar Journal, 8(1), 163–181.
Pedersen, T. (2006). The svalbard continental shelf controversy: Legal disputes and political rivalries. Ocean Development and International Law, 37(3–4), 339–358.
Pedersen, T., & Henriksen, T. (2009). Svalbard’s maritime zones: The end of legal uncertainty? International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24(1), 141–161.
Rahbek-Clemmensen, J. & Thomasen, G. (2018). Learning from the Ilulissat initiative. State power, institutional legitimacy, and governance in the Arctic Ocean 2007–18. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen/Centre for Military Studies.
Rossi, Christopher R. (2015). A unique international problem: The Svalbard Treaty, equal enjoyment, and terra nullius. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 15(1), 93–136.
Rottem, S. V. (2013). The Arctic Council and the Search and Rescue Agreement: The case of Norway. Polar Record, 50(3), 284–292.
Sellheim, N. (2012). The establishment of the permanent Arctic Council secretariat: Challenges and opportunities. In T. S. Axworthy, T. Koivurova, & W. Hasanat (Eds.), The Arctic council: Its place in the future of Arctic governance (pp. 60–82). Toronto: The Gordon Foundation.
Skagestad, O. G.(2010). The ‘High North’: An elastic concept in Norwegian Arctic policy. FNI Report 10/2010, Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
Skjærseth, J. B., & Rosendahl, K. G. (1995). Norges miljø-utenrikspolitik. In T. L. Knutsen, G. M. Sørbø, & S. Gjerdåker (Eds.), Norges utentrikspolitikk (pp. 161–180). Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Tamnes, R. (2011). Arctic security and Norway. In J. Kraska (Ed.), Arctic security in an age of climate change (pp. 64–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilhelmsen, J., & Gjerde, K. L. (2018). Norway and Russia in the Arctic: New cold war contamination? Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 9, 382–407.
Young, O. R. (1998). Creating regimes. Arctic accords and international governance. Ithaca/NY: Cornell University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Humrich, C. (2020). Norway’s High North Geopolitics: Continuities and Changes Through Three Decades. In: Weber, J. (eds) Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic. Frontiers in International Relations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45005-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45005-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-45004-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-45005-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)