319
Arctic Yearbook 2015
state-level (see e.g. Neumann 2008). As Oran Young (2009: 431) explains in relation to Arctic
governance:
Although they do not prescribe detailed answers to specific questions about policy,
the influence of such discourses is enormous. They often shape the way we formulate
questions, and they can direct our thinking in ways that favour some answers and rule
out others.
As such, the discourses and conceptualisations of the Arctic region and own role therein held by state
representatives hold a powerful potential to guide their approach thereto.3
Main findings
Arctic statehood was for the majority of the Norwegian state officials primarily conceptualised as a
result of geographically and geologically based provisions laid down in UNCLOS. Although a status
as a so-called Arctic state is often derived from territory north of the Arctic Circle, oceanic rights
clearly constructed an internal hierarchy among these, thereby granting Norway an elevated status
even within the group. As a small state, this chimes well with Norway’s quest for international status
and influence – a desire to be heard on the international stage (Carvalho & Neumann 2015). As one
official explained:
There is kind of an ‘A’ and a ‘B’ team in the AC, as there are five states that have
borders to the Arctic Ocean, and Norway is one of those. [...] So that is, in a way, the
‘A’ team, those who have direct interests and territories in the Arctic Ocean, while the
other states – with areas north of the Arctic Circle, but no border to the Ocean – they
are kind of part of this game without participating to the same extent (G).
Hence, the specific way in which the Arctic is defined becomes significant for relative status; in this
case, emphasising the oceanic definition as it is of particular advantage. Interestingly, the officials’
understandings of (dis)similarity between the two terms ‘the Arctic’ and ‘the High North’ were highly
inconsistent, showing the definitional malleability of the region depending on topical context and
favoured political outcome (Skagestad 2010). Among the more reflexive comments on the utilisation
of either term, one mused: “That sort of depends on who defines what things are; you often define
things depending on your own interests” (F).
In other words, UNCLOS grants Norway international status, also within the region itself; a status and
particular interpretation of Arctic statehood that may advantageously be employed in certain contexts.
Land territory north of the Arctic Circle, i.e. Norway’s three northernmost counties, was seen as a
further legitimising factor of Arctic statehood, and instrumental in the privileged role as one of the
A8. The phrase ‘region of opportunities’ (‘mulighetenes landsdel’) was repeated by many, highlighting the
optimism tied to economic resource development in the northern areas benefitting the whole country.
This particular focus on Northern Norway granted legitimacy not just abroad, but also among a
domestic electorate; in turn necessitating specific political action to match the rhetoric in the form of
investment in the northernmost counties:
Medby