| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
173740
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
117437
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We argue that the continued persistence of borders is an effect of their constitutive role for the many dimensions of a social particular. States cannot choose to have a border; but they can and do make choices amongst the materials available on the various planes of inscription for bordering. For contemporary states the planes have become increasingly disaggregated, in the sense that they do not fall into place at one and the same border. Thus, states have to pick and choose different articulations (often inconsistently) on different planes. We illustrate these ideas with instances, present-day and historical, of bordering. A corollary of there being more need to pick and choose is that articulations of sovereignty change. So, sovereignty is increasingly the material of 'sovereignty games', where sovereignty is used as a political instrument. In sum, our theory directs attention to state bordering on different planes of inscription.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|