This article is a contribution to the ongoing debate on human security in Security Dialogue; the authors argue that they provide an illustration of the complexity and dynamism of security. To illustrate this point, the authors examine security through the notion of societal security as understood by Ole Wæver, and use identity as a ‘door’ to a broader understanding and use of the concept of security. The focus of the article is gender identity as an integral perspective of security. In conjunction with elite-defined state interests, identity articulates the security interests of ‘significant groups’, supporting the articulation of security needs by individuals (as they identify themselves with various significant groups) and communities. Gender is identified as a ‘significant group’ relevant to the security dynamic. Using gender identity to understand security requires breaking down rigid and fundamental structures that have been built around traditional notions of security, allowing for articulations of security as it is understood by individuals in general and by women in particular.

Security policy challenges in the high north should be approached both as an insight into the international legal framework on which co-existence in the region rests and as a sober realpolitik analysis. Against this background, the objective of this article is to paint a more balanced picture of security policy options in Norway's Arctic waters, rather than observing contemporary general discourse on the topic might suggest. Management of marine resources, delimitation of unresolved maritime boundaries and relations with Russia in the northern maritime areas are used as examples to substantiate our main thesis which is that dispassionate diplomacy is more likely to resolve disputes than is military confrontation.

No abstract

translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

On 12 May 2011 at the seventh ministerial meeting, the member states of the Arctic Council (AC) signed the Arctic SAR agreement, the first legally binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the AC. Its objective is to strengthen search and rescue cooperation and coordination in the Arctic. The purpose of this article is to explore why an agreement on search and rescue under the auspices of the AC has been negotiated; what its key features are; and lastly, how it is and will be implemented. It is argued that the SAR agreement is more important for the AC than for Norway. It has had limited practical consequences in that country. The agreement may be politically and symbolically significant but it has neither financially nor organisationally changed Norwegian search and rescue policy.