Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Norway’s High North Geopolitics: Continuities and Changes Through Three Decades

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic

Part of the book series: Frontiers in International Relations ((FIR))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for instance Blunden (2009) and Ebinger and Zambetakis (2009) as examples.

  2. 2.

    On the meaning and relevance of ‘nordområdene’ or ‘High North’ in Norwegian discourse see Skagestad (2010), Jensen and Hønneland (2011), and Tamnes (2011: 48).

  3. 3.

    All translations from Norwegian sources are my own.

  4. 4.

    The Spitzbergen Treaty of 1920 establishes “full and absolute [Norwegian] sovereignty” over the Archipelago (§1).

  5. 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. 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. 7.

    Against fierce resistance the government decided to merge the counties of Finnmark and Troms in 2020.

  8. 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. 9.

    The respective tensions come to the fore in both Tamnes (2011) and Flikke (2011).

  10. 10.

    On the tension between sustainability and oil and gas development in the Arctic see Mikkelsen and Langhelle (2008).

  11. 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. 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. 13.

    Both Young (1998: 62), and Flikke (2011) emphasize the importance of functionalist thinking for the Norwegian approach to international cooperation in the High North.

  14. 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. 15.

    The Arctic Eight are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, USA, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, and Iceland.

  16. 16.

    This section follows Young’s (1998) comprehensive account which also covers early cooperation under the AEPS.

  17. 17.

    For the emergence of the AC cf. Axworthy and Dean (2013).

  18. 18.

    On the integration of sustainable development in AEPS and AC see Humrich (2018: 33-37).

  19. 19.

    Though, as Hønneland emphasizes, cooperation on nuclear safety was very successful (2011: 266).

  20. 20.

    An internally commissioned evaluation of the AC (Haavisto 2001), provided respective background analysis and proposals.

  21. 21.

    At the end of the 1990s the term ‘nordområdene’ had barely been used. As analyses of Norwegian political discourse show this changed when the frequency of the term’s appearance steeply rose from 2004 (Leira et al. 2007: 29; Jensen and Hønneland 2011).

  22. 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. 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. 24.

    For the respective process see Sellheim (2012).

  25. 25.

    Norway, Russia, USA, Canada, and Denmark/Greenland.

  26. 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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, R. (2016). Norsk Utanrikspolitikk etter 1814. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blunden, M. (2009). The new problem of Arctic stability. Survival, 51(5), 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebinger, C. K., & Zambetakis, E. (2009). The geopolitics of Arctic melt. International Affairs, 85(6), 1215–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Forsvarssjefen.(2019). Et styrket Forsvar. Oslo: Forsvarsjefens Fagmilitære Råd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haavisto, P. (2001). Review of the Arctic Council’s structures. Consultant’s study. Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hønneland, G. (2011). Kompromiss als Routine. Russland, Norwegen und die Barentssee. Osteuropa, 61(2–3), 257–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, L. C. (2016). From the High North to the Low South: Bipolar Norway’s Antarctic strategy. The Polar Journal, 6(2), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, L. C., & Hønneland, G. (2011). Framing the High North: Public discourses in Norway after 2000. Acta Borealia, 28(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, K. (2014). The Arctic—A new region of conflict? the case of oil and gas. Cooperation and Conflict, 49(2), 162–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leira, H., Borchgrevink, A., Græger, N., Melchior, A., Stamnes, E., & Øverland, I. (2007). Norske selvbilder og norsk utenrikspolitik. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NMoD.(2001). Omleggingen av Forsvaret i Perioden 2002–2005. St.prp. nr. 45 (2000-2001). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoD.(2004). Den videre Moderniseringen av Forsvaret i perioden 2005–2008. St.prp. nr. 42 (2003–2004). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoD.(2008). Et Forsvar til Vern om Norges Sikkerhet, Interesser og Verdier. St.prp. nr. 48 (2007–2008). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoD.(2015). Kampkraft og Bærekraft. Langtidsplan for Forsvarssektoren. St.prop. nr 151S (2015–2016). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoFA.(2005). Muligheter og Utfordringer i Nord. St.meld.Nr. 30 (2004–2005). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoFA.(2006). The Norwegian High North Strategy. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoFA.(2009). New Building Blocks in the North. The next Step in the Government’s High North Strategy. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoFA.(2011). The High North. Visions and Strategies. St.meld.Nr. 7 (2011–2012). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMoFA.(2014). Nordkloden. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norges Regjering. (2017). Nordområdestrategi. Mellom geopolitikk of samfunnsutvikling. Oslo: Departemene.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOU.(2000). Et Nytt Forsvar. Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2000:32. Oslo: Statens Fortvaltningstjeneste, Informasjonsforvaltning.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOU.(2003). Mot Nord!‘. Utfordringer og Muligheter i Nordområdene. Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2000:32. Oslo: Statens Fortvaltningstjeneste, Informasjonsforvaltning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhamar, T. (2004). Security policies from constraints to choice. In K. Heidar (Ed.), Nordic Politics. Comparative Perspectives (pp. 228–246). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, T. (2006). The svalbard continental shelf controversy: Legal disputes and political rivalries. Ocean Development and International Law, 37(3–4), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottem, S. V. (2013). The Arctic Council and the Search and Rescue Agreement: The case of Norway. Polar Record, 50(3), 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skagestad, O. G.(2010). The ‘High North’: An elastic concept in Norwegian Arctic policy. FNI Report 10/2010, Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1998). Creating regimes. Arctic accords and international governance. Ithaca/NY: Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Christoph Humrich

Authors
  1. Christoph Humrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Humrich .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Security Policy, Kiel University, Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

    Joachim Weber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation