Arktisk politik og regimedannelse i 2010'erne
Recent developments have placed the High North on the international agenda. These include global warming, the prospects of major oil and gas finds, the opening of the Arctic Ocean to international shipping and the ongoing partition of its outer continental shelf between the five coastal states. In the so-called Ilulissat Declaration of 2008 these "Arctic Five" promised to play according to the UNCLOS rules and to shoulder their responsibility as coastal states. Despite this, the future may see both cooperation and conflict in the Arctic. The aim of the article is to discuss the possibilities of cooperative schemes, regimes, to regulate the problems which increasing shipping and extraction industries and fisheries may cause. First, a survey of future Arctic actors and fora is presented. While Arctic politics isstill dominated by the eight members of the Arctic Council, other actors, most clearly China, South Korea, Japan and the European Commission, are pressuring for influence. Furthermore, the Arctic Council is pressured by the "Arctic Five" and has reacted by establishing a secretariat and by adopting its first binding decision, anagreement on cooperation in search and rescue operations. Other relevant fora are the IMO, the WMO and UNCLOS. Next, an inventory of future "tasks" facing the Arctic nations is presented. They include defence tasks, sovereignty tasks, national authority tasks, and tasks, which can only (or best) be handled in regimes. Such regimes seem most needed with respect to international shipping. In the final section the discussion on possible regimes gets more concrete. Many tasks can best be handled by the IMO, but the Arctic Council, the WMO and UNCLOS have also roles to play. In particular, the five Arctic costal states have acrucial role as providers of specific regime services. Without their participation Arctic regime-formation is a non-starter,
Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change: The Arctic Challenge to Danish Foreign and Security Policy
Denmark's awakening awareness of the Arctic In May 2008, Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller gathered colleagues from the four other states bordering the Arctic Ocean for a successful conference in Ilulissat, Greenland, on the future governance of the region. In the so-called Ilulissat Declaration adopted at the conference, the Arctic Five stated the following:
 The Arctic stands at the threshold of significant changes. Climate change and the melting of ice have a potential impact on vulnerable ecosystems, the livelihoods of local populations and indigenous communities, and the potential exploitation of natural resources. By virtue of their sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the Arctic Ocean, the five coastal states are in a unique position to address these possibilities and challenges. In this regard we recall that an extensive legal framework applies to the Arctic Ocean.…Notably, the law of the sea provides for important rights and obligations.…This framework provides a solid foundation for responsible management by the five coastal states and other users of this Ocean through national implementation and application of relevant provisions. We therefore see no need to develop a new comprehensive international legal scheme to govern the Arctic Ocean.
THE ICEMAN THAT NEVER CAME
The article deals with the so‐called Project Iceworm for the mobile deployment of up to 600 MRBMs under the Greenland Icecap. It was designed around 1960 by the US Army as its bid for a share in the US strategic deterrent, and later presented as a candidate for a NATO nuclear force. The project was considered favourably in the higher echelons of the Kennedy Administration, who were cautiously optimistic concerning the possibility of getting the necessary consent from the Danish Government. An analysis of Denmark's nuclear policy demonstrates the utter lack of realism of this assumption, but the project failed on other – mainly technical and organizational – grounds and was never broached to the Danes.