Greenland’s Arctic advantage: Articulations, acts and appearances of sovereignty games

Abstract

Greenland representatives successfully use the renewed international geostrategic interest in the Arctic to enhance Greenland’s foreign policy sovereignty. This is facilitated by Denmark’s dependence on Greenland’s geographic location and continuous membership of the Danish Realm for maintaining the status of an Arctic state, which recently has become one of the five most important security and foreign policy priorities. The dependency gives Greenland an ‘Arctic advantage’ in negotiations with Denmark, while turning circumpolar events into strategic arenas for sovereignty games in the aim to move the boundary of what Greenland may do internationally without Danish involvement. This article analyzes how these games unfold in the Arctic Council, at the high-level Ilulissat meetings and at circumpolar conferences where Greenland representatives articulate, act and appear more foreign policy sovereignty through outspoken discontent, tacit gestures and symbolic alterations. Altogether, this contributes to the expanding of Greenland’s foreign policy room for maneuver within the current legal frameworks, while enhancing Greenland’s international status and attracting external investments, important in their striving towards becoming a state with full formal Westphalian sovereignty.

Post-colonial gaslighting and Greenlandic independence: When ontological insecurity sustains hierarchy

“…The area of Greenland makes up 98% of the landmass of Denmark (Breum, 2018: 10). Denmark is also only an ‘Arctic Power’ and member of the Arctic Council through Greenland’s geographical location (Jacobsen, 2020). Denmark has furthermore received significant discounts on its NATO membership in a quid pro quo for American bases on Greenland (Adler-Nissen, 2014: 60), and Greenland played a significant role in ensuring that Denmark was counted as an ‘Allied Country’ during World War II (Lidegaard, 2020).…”

“…In IR, the literature on 'sovereignty games' similarly highlights the merits of the nonsovereign status by investigating how agency is exercised through hybridity. First developed by Adler-Nissen and Gammeltoft-Hansen (2008), the literature developed to focus specifically on Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) affiliated with the European Union (EU; Adler-Nissen and Gad, 2013) and then later specifically on the Faroe Islands (Adler-Nissen 2014) and then Greenland (Adler-Nissen and Gad, 2017;Gad, 2014Gad, , 2017Jacobsen, 2020). Through the heuristic device of 'sovereignty games', the contributors highlight that non-sovereign entities exercise agency through this hybrid status.…”

Spatio-temporal evolution and influencing factors of geopolitical relations among Arctic countries based on news big data

“…Among them, Canada, Russia, and Denmark are the three countries with the heaviest share in Greenland's interaction network and a high share of negative sentiment. Greenland is located at the intersection of the Northeast, Northwest, and Central routes of the Arctic, which is an important strategic position is (Jacobsen, 2020). Against the backdrop of competing forces for control in the Arctic shipping lanes, Canada interacts particularly closely with Greenland because of its northern Arctic archipelago in the important Northwest Passage (Shen et al, 2021).…”

Towards customised sovereignty: West Nordic societies in the new great power rivalry

“…During the Cold War, the three societies accumulated bargaining experience in relations with the two great powers, the US and USSR. Today, they are gradually developing their own security and international politics, including in the Arctic, though still largely dependent on the US and NATO allies (High North News, 2020;Jacobsen, 2020). Due to economic and financial troubles, as happened in 2008 for Iceland, West Nordic societies turned to a more balanced and pragmatic approach to international cooperation.…”