Territorial nationalism and Arctic geopolitics: Iceland as an Arctic coastal state
This paper explores the cultural and political significance of being acknowledged and recognized as an “Arctic coastal state”. Using Iceland as a case study, we consider how coastal state status had grown in significance as the Arctic Ocean has been re-imagined more as a polar Mediterranean and less as a frozen desert. By drawing on Michael Billig’s work on banal nationalism and popular geopolitics, the manner in which the ideas and practices associated with a “coastal state” are reproduced in elite and everyday contexts. However, we conclude by noting that thus far this appeal to Iceland as “coastal state” has gained greater traction within the Icelandic Foreign Ministry and Parliament, and it remains to be seen whether it will have a more popular resonance with Icelandic citizens. Whatever the future, it is a timely reminder that terms such as “coastal state” are caught up in national and even circumpolar identity projects.
Big fish in a small (Arctic) pond : regime adherence as status and Arctic State identity in Norway.
Despite frequent reassurances that the Arctic region’s regime of governance rests soundly on two mutually reinforcing pillars: the Arctic Council intergovernmental cooperation and the international UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), doubt is still cast time and time again on the durability of Arctic peace and stability. Explanations for the regime’s strength are often based on classical theories of international relations, wherein traditional concepts of power-struggles ensure the relative benefit of state cooperation in the region. However, the case is here made that adherence to the present Arctic regime of governance is not just a matter of material or strategic importance for the eight so-called Arctic states. It is also a matter of status, pride, and identity; indeed, perceptions of a state’s role in the world are a powerful and often underestimated force in determining interstate relations. 
 
Examining the specific case of one Arctic state, Norway, the paper explores how a state identity linked to the status granted by the current regime of governance guides political practices. This is done by drawing on a range of interviews with Norwegian state officials. For these, Arctic statehood is tied to political status, leverage, and legitimacy, thereby contributing to a positive selfperception and an advantageous international position. Furthermore, this is linked to pre-existing idea(l)s of ‘essential’ Norwegian history, culture, and values. Thus, through adopting a self-perception founded on the present Arctic regime of governance, the latter is discursively and normatively strengthened and reified, showing the potential potency of a political, state identity.
Defining the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf across the Arctic Basin: The Russian Submission, States' Rights, Boundary Delimitation and Arctic Regional Cooperation
The Russian submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) provides an excellent example of the difficulty faced by Arctic states in relation to their rights and claims as coastal states. The geology and geography of the Arctic submarine environment are complex and poorly understood. Political maritime boundaries for this semi-enclosed sea are incomplete. The agreed boundaries do not take into consideration the full potential of the legal continental shelves. Viewed against continental shelf issues, possible maritime boundary delimitations and the rights of states to engage in regional initiatives, it is apparent that the Russian submission has not prejudiced the rights of other states. Although the two functions are inherently related, the ability to delimit boundaries with adjacent and opposite states remains separate from the process undertaken by the CLCS.