HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Kelsey Aho
November 15, 2014
Professor Meek
How have the creation of visa-free areas increased and decreased mobility in the Arctic?
Abstract: Mobility in the Arctic is imperative for the subsistence culture and adaptation
due to changing resources. In the last 300 years visa-free travel has existed between the
Reindeer herders in Sampi, US and Canada, in the Schengen Area, between the US and
Russia, between Russia and Norway, and elsewhere in coming years. Each of these
agreements addresses mobility along a specific regional and contextual need. However,
these visa-free areas developed for differing reasons. Thus, this paper will respond to the
following questions: first, is mobility increasing or decreasing in the Arctic? Secondly,
which bodies that desired change in mobility reached their target: local groups or distant
federal bodies with outside interests? Since the need for visa-free travel continues today,
this paper will conclude by discussing how to utilize activities from the past 300 years to
predict potential future visa-free areas in the Arctic.
Introduction
The Arctic differs from other world regions as home to a large number of peoples
that depend on subsistence. The Arctic came increasingly into contact with inchoate
explorers and colonizers only relatively recently. Rich with biological and extractive
resources, the Arctic currently experiences the overlapping of indigenous nations’
traditional ways of living with market and governmental interests. While the Arctic is a
region, the more focused relations between Arctic states define the regional political
climates. Moreover, the Arctic still has contentious boundaries; most jurisdictional
1
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
qualms were only settled in the 20th and 21st centuries. Therefore, visa-free areas have
been developed as a way to address problems the local populations face in connection
with the eight Arctic states’ new and moving political boundaries.
While visa-free areas have been created primarily for the local populations, the
task is too large for a small border community to address through foreign policy. For this
reason, visa-free areas are utilized primarily by local populations but created between
national governments. Typically the areas are created once two or more states ratify a
treaty, redefining the border region. This length of this process can range from short-term
to centuries. Since these areas are in hinterland regions of the states involved, they are
rarely a national priority. The population affected by a visa-free area is typically less than
one percent of the national population since the regions exist along hinterlands; resulting
in their little political weight. While the creation of a visa-free area would be nearly
impossible for civil society groups to undertake individually, the role of the local
population is imperative. The following sections will chronologically describe the distinct
local needs and the national responses of five present day visa-free areas in the Arctic.
Norway-Sweden: Reindeer Herding
Sapmi, home to the Saami,1 lies in the north of Europe spanning today’s Norway,
Sweden, Finland and Russia (see Appendix 1). In 1751, the first state borders were
established through the Lapp Codicil, which also respected the Saami people and their
use of the land for reindeer herding. However, at the time, the Saami held separate
national identities while independently controlling their states’ affairs under mostly selfgovernment.2
1
2
alternatively called “Sami”
Declaration from the First Sami Parliamentarian Conference (Jokkmokk: Sami Parliament, 2005).
2
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
After 1751, all four states recognized the Saami and their needs as a nomadic
people. Over the next 250 years, the Saami nation was separated by four different
citizenships; this new identity would increasingly worsen Saami cohesion and their
traditional way of life. Initially the Lapp Codicil was developed primarily to resolve
border disputes between the three existing states: Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Finland,
and Russia.3 Secondly, an addendum confirmed the Saami’s traditional land rights across
the states’ borders. Complications increased in 1809, when Finland was lost to Russia
and in 1814, when Norway and Denmark separated.4 Therefore in 1826, Norway and
Russia signed a new border treaty, and by 1834, the continued negotiations agreed to
abolish Saami resource rights.5 Then in 1852, when Russia closed the border to reindeer
husbandry, Norway responded by prohibiting fishing for non-Norwegian Saami, where
the marine jurisdiction had previously extended to the entire Saami population.6 By 1889,
Russia had closed the Swedish-Finnish border to reindeer husbandry, and for the first
time the Saami were completely separated by borders that differentiated their citizenship.
Other than border issues, the Saami faced a changing relationship with their states, as
their status came to be seen as “an obstacle to national development” across the region,
though less extensively in Sweden.7 In 1917, Finland declared independence, and in 1919
Norway restricted Swedish Saami herders from grazing in Norway by signing the
Reindeer Herding Convention. In both the 1949 and 1972 Conventions, Saami lost
grazing areas across Sapmi without compensation. Concluding the 20th century, the
3
Patrik Lantto, Borders, citizenship and change: the case of the Sami people, 1751-2008 (Taylor &
Francis, 2010) 545.
4
Lantto, Borders, citizenship and change, 546.
5
Scott Forrest, “Territoriality and State-Sami Relations” (University of Northern British Columbia, 1997)
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/HistoryCulture/Sami/samisf.html.
6
Lantto, Borders, citizenship and change, 547.
7
Lantto, Borders, citizenship and change, 549.
3
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Saami behind the Iron Curtain in the USSR were experiencing the worst historic isolation
in the region.8
The Nordic states used two treaties and policies in an attempt to alleviate the
following transgressions: the ILO Convention No 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples in Independent counties, the Nordic Saami Convention, and the 1956 Nordic
Saami Council which was later known as the 1992 Saami Council.9 The ILO Convention
No 169 was only signed by Norway and the Nordic Saami Convention and remains a
draft.10 The Nordic Saami Convention involves Norway, Sweden, and Finland as well as
the three states’ Saami Parliaments, however it does not include Russia.11 Developed
between the years 2003-2005, all of the previously noted parties established the
convention, which determines the rights of the Saami while mitigating the challenges of
being a nation divided by international borders.12 Other sizable populations and extractive
industries in the Sapmi region have supported the three states to politicize and delay any
state decision regarding Saami self-determination.13
In 1992, the Saami Council comprised of individuals from all four states for the
first time. The Saami Council, the body who initiated the Nordic Saami Convention,
regards identity, including nationality, as separate from citizenship. Unfortunately, each
state interprets the Saami’s domestic rights differently, and ‘foreign’ Saami may or may
8
Lantto, Borders, citizenship and change, 554.
Tanja Joona, “ILO Convention No. 169 – A Solution for Land Disputes in the Nordic Countries?” The
Borderless North 4(2006) 176-185.
10
Nigel Banks and Timo Koivurova, The Proposed Nordic Saami Convention: National and International
Dimensions, (Hart Publishing, 2013).
11
Timo Koivurova, The Draft Nordic Saami Convention: Nations Working Together, (University of
Lapland, 2008).
12
Mattias Ahren, Martin Scheinin, and John Henriksen, “The Nordic Sami Convention: The International
Human Rights, Self-Determination and other Central Provisions” Journal of Indigenous Peoples Rights 3
(2007) 9-14.
13
Ahren, Scheinin, and Henriksen, The Nordic Sami Convention, 37-8.
9
4
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
not be granted the rights of Saami with the citizenship of a particular state. Today, the
rights of Saami are far from comprehensive or cohesive; Lantto expresses the
disintegration of the unified Saami nation “from simply being Saami to being Norwegian,
Swedish, Finnish or Russian Saami. Citizenship had become a tool for a stronger control
and eventual assimilation of the Saami”.14
US-Canada: The Jay Treaty
The development of visa-free travel for American Indians from Canada to the
U.S. began in the late 1700s. The authority of this agreement has been questioned several
times, and to this day remains uncertain because of the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative and other efforts to limit immigration into the U.S.15
The American Revolutionary War ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1793 and the
subsequent creation of the United States of America. In the following year Britain and the
United States both signed the Jay Treaty which did not establish a new right for the
continent’s Indian population; rather, it simply recognized the pre-existing right of
Indians to move freely across the U.S./Canada border.16 Todd Estes defines that the
treaty’s meaning as, “the first article pledged ‘Peace, and a true and sincere Friendship’
between the two nations, and the third stated that citizens of both countries could pass
freely across boundary lines of the other and engage in trade”.17 Therefore, in the late 18th
century, all citizens of either country could travel freely between the states without
paying duties or taxes at the border. Then in 1815 the Treaty of Ghent was signed by both
14
Lanntto, Borders, citizenship and change, 553.
Greg Boos, American Indians Born in Canada and the Right of Free Access to the United States
(Washington: Border Policy Research Institute, 2013).
16
Boos, American Indians Born in Canada.
17
Todd Estes, The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political
Culture (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006) 29.
15
5
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
the U.S. and Britain, ending the War of 1812’s suspension of The Jay Treaty. The Treaty
of Ghent restored the political boundaries of 1812 and the British proposed an Indian
buffer state, but the US refused to consider it (see Appendix 2).18 Therefore Article IX of
the treaty claimed to “restore to Natives all possessions, rights and privileges which they
may have enjoyed, or been entitled to in 1811”. But the Treaty of Ghent was difficult to
enforce, so it became the informal practice of both states to allow all indigenous people to
cross the political boundary freely and without collecting customs.19
In 1924 the U.S. Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, which gave only
indigenous people residing within the U.S. borders citizenship, ending the ability of
Canadian indigenous peoples’ freedom to cross the border.20 Three years later, Kanento
Paul Diabo, a Canadian born Iroquois iron-worker, was arrested in Philadelphia as an
illegal immigrant. In 1928 Diabo won his case on the claim that the Jay Treaty of 1794
protected his right to cross the border.21 This court decision was codified by U.S.
Congress in 1952 as the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) stating: “Nothing in this
title shall be construed to affect the right of American Indians born in Canada to pass the
borders of the United States, but such right shall extend only to persons who possess at
least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race”.22 Canada, however, does not
extend reciprocal rights for American born Indians entering Canada under The Jay
Treaty. Canada addresses this issue through Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act by
claiming, “every person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act has the right to enter
The War of 1812, “The Treaty of Ghent”, last modified 2014, http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of1812/essays/treaty-ghent/.
19
Boos, American Indians Born in Canada.
20
Boos, American Indians Born in Canada, 4-5.
21
Celeste Groux, “MNN: Imaginary Line”, last modified 2013, http://mohawknationnews.com/blog/tag/us-vs-kanento-paul-diabo/ .
22
Boos, American Indians Born in Canada, 12.
18
6
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
and remain in Canada”.23 Moreover, in the case Mitchell v M.N.R., the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled in favor of an indigenous group, the Mohawks, freely crossing the
U.S./Canada border without having to pay customs on personal goods.24 Ultimately, these
countries are honoring different treaties, and individuals will find that today’s border
officials do not always allow the same individuals to travel freely.25
Schengen Area
The Nordic States of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland have
joined with one another in different formations throughout history. For example, Sweden
and Finland were once a single state, as well as Norway and Denmark. Due to this
common heritage, the Nordic Passport Union was established in 1952. By 1996, all five
Nordic states had joined the Schengen area (Appendix 3); thus while the Nordic states
have successfully granted visa-free travel, the process focused solely on governmental
collaboration, while the participation excludes the distant residents.
Several times throughout history the Nordic States’ governments have been united
in various forms. From 1397-1523 the Kalmar Union was the first time that all five states
were united.26 Ruling families merged together, establishing the union in order to have
one king ruling over the three kingdoms. Rivalry ensued between Denmark-Norway and
Sweden-Finland, leading to the dissolution of the union. In need of independence within
Europe, the Nordic states cooperated in the following forms: the Nordic
Interparliamentary Union in 1907, the League of Nations for Nordic countries, the Nordic
Council in 1952, the Nordic Passport Union in 1952, and the Nordic Council of Ministers
23
Boos, American Indians born in Canada, 9.
Boos, American Indians born in Canada, 12.
25
Boos, American Indians born in Canada, 9.
26
Preben Bonnen and Michael Sosted, The Origin, Development and Perspectives of Nordic Co-operation
in a New and Enlarged European Union, (University of Aarhus, 2003) 21.
24
7
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
in 1971.27 The Nordic Interparliamentary Union was founded as a forum for members of
the Nordic parliaments.28 Later in 1952, it was extended as the Nordic Council, which
produced both a common labor market and the Nordic Passport Union. The Nordic
Passport Union allowed citizens of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland to
travel and reside in other Nordic states without a passport. In 1995, the Schengen Area
was established and “this meant that all Nordic Countries began applying the Schengen
implementation agreement at the same time”.29 The states coupled the two visa-free areas
in order for Nordic citizens to maintain their rights. Also, the Schengen model was easily
adopted because of the previous cooperation under the Nordic Passport Union.
In the initial case of the Single European Act, the Schengen Area was intended for
workers. This concept was described as, “an area without internal frontiers in which the
free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured”.30 The first step for
achieving this area was the removal of border controls, followed by the application31 of
the Schengen acquis32. Non-EU member states can also be party to the Schengen Area.
The harmonization of the acquis allows states to join the visa-free zone. Currently 26
states are part of the Schengen Area. Future changes to visa-free travel include: reformed
EU visa code concerning internal border controls, evaluation, the entry-exit system,
27
Preben Bonnen and Michael Sosted, The Origin, Development, 22.
Ronald Tiersky and Erik Jones, Europe Today: A Twenty-first Century Introduction, (United Kingdom:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2014) 181.
29
Arto Niemenkari, The Finnish Border Security Concept, (Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic
Control of Armed Forces, 2002) 3.
30
European Union, Article 14(2), Treaty Establishing the European Community (Consolidated Version)
(Rome Treaty, 25 March 1957) available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39c0.html.
31
Anais Atger, The Abolition of Internal Order Checks in an Enlarged Schengen Area, (CEPS, 2008) 5.
32
The “Schengen acquis” refers to the body of EU law that a state must incorporate into its own legal
system before official accession
28
8
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
maritime surveillance and further clarification on residence permit requirements.33 Future
amendments to the Schengen Area are likely to restrict rights of irregular migrants, but
have little impact on the current residents.
Chukotka-Alaska
At their closest geographical point, Russia and the US share a dialect of the
Yu’pik language, which fosters communication across the political boundary. Starting in
1938, Russia and the US allowed visa-free visits.34 Following the Cold War in 1989, the
Bering Straits Regional Commission took form and by 1992 the first individuals from
Chukotka traveled visa-free to Alaska again. Since the early 1990s, relations between the
two states have been strained and the mobility of the local population is again decreasing.
On February 1938, the U.S. and Soviet Governments recognized the shared
culture on both sides of the Bering Strait by signing the first visa-free memorandum for
American Eskimos to visit Siberia.35 Individuals were allowed to travel for the purpose of
meeting relatives. This agreement entered into force on the 18th of April 1938 and was
terminated ten years later on the 29th of May 1948. Originally, the American Eskimos had
not been entering the U.S.S.R. legally; therefore, the memorandum allowed up to 100
Eskimos annually with a form of identification to enter the U.S.S.R. for up to three
months.36 After World War II relations changed drastically and in 1946 the last recorded
boat traveled from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. Krauss comments that, “during the spring of
1948, at exactly the same time as the Berlin blockade and airlift were beginning, a State
33
Steve Peers, The Future of the Schengen System, (Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy
Studies, 2013) 7-82.
34
Michael Krauss, “Crossroads? A Twentieth-Century History of Contacts across the Bering Strait”
Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim (Smithsonian Institution 1994) 368.
35
Charles Bevins, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1887-1949.
(Washington DC: Department of State, 1974) 1277.
36
“Visits to Siberia by American Eskimos” (Washington DC: Department of State, 1938).
9
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Department file shows considerable activity concerning the termination of these Eskimo
visits”.37 For the next 40 years the Bering Strait would effectively be closed. Moreover in
1958, evacuations in the U.S.S.R. were established to limit contact between the native
communities. During the 1970’s, interests in reconnecting kin on both sides of the Bering
Strait were renewed.38 Academics, specifically linguists, began making contact with their
counterparts across the strait. In May of 1988, Reagan and Gorbachev “expressed support
for the expansion of contacts between native peoples of the Soviet North and of Alaska”,
according to Pravda. In June, the Nome-to-Provideniya Friendship Flight carried 70
passengers across the Bering Strait.39
In 1989, the Bering Straits Regional Commission was formed and the visa-free
agreement between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. was created at Jackson Hole. The U.S. and
U.S.S.R. developed the Bering Straits Regional Commission through the
Intergovernmental Agreement that was signed on the 23rd of September 1989 at Jackson
Hole, Wyoming. The structure of the Commission consists of three Russian and three
American members, with one Commissioner on each side serving as the Chief
Commissioner.40 In 1991, the Commission had its first official meeting in which it
finalized the procedures needed for visa-free travel. By August of 1991, 6,000 people had
crossed the Bering Strait.41 In 1992, the first Chukchi representatives traveled to Alaska
on the visa-free basis. This number amplified and, in 1994, 355 Chukotka natives visited
Alaska. Then in 1996, the visa-free application fee was abolished.
37
Krauss, Crossroads?, 369.
Krauss, Crossroads?, 371.
39
Krauss, Crossroads?, 375.
40
“Chukotka and Alaska: Visa-Free Travels”, last modified 2013,
http://www.chukotka.org/en/authorities/visa-registration/.
41
Krauss, Crossroads?, 377.
38
10
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
The visa-free area has experienced several alterations. The governments have
made the rules stricter by confining travel to traditional methods only, resulting in
reduced need for the flight and the flight’s subsequent cancellation. Also, individuals
claim that on the border, Russian guards often do not accept the passports of American
Yu’pik individuals. Looking forward to 2015, Yakutia Airlines will supposedly begin
flying from Anchorage to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Khabarovsk again.42
Anticipating this reconnection of Alaska and Chukotka, it seems as if some of the Cold
War’s legacies are fading, for now, into the background.
Russia-Norway
Norway and Russia’s boundary doubles as the boundary between a Schengen
member state and a non-Schengen state. Therefore, the first visa-free agreement between
Russia and a Schengen-member state, signed in 2010, was significant. Populations living
near the border can use this agreement to cross the boundary for up to 15 days with a
valid ID-card.43 Since this visa-free area was agreed upon, efforts to increase the number
of residents, originally restricted to those from communities along the border, may be
expanded to those across all of Finnmark. Moreover, the building of the underground
“Trifon tunnel” between the two states has been an additional focus.44
Kirkenes, Norway and Nikel, Russia stand twenty kilometers from one another
and the exchange of goods and services boosts both industries. Cooperation started in
1972, during the Cold War, when both towns signed a “friendship agreement regarding a
“Alaska-Russian Far East Service” (InterPacific Aviation and Marketing, last modified 2014)
http://www.airrussia.us/air-tickets/alaska-russian-far-east.html.
43
Thomas Nilsen, “First Opening in the Schengen-regime with Russia”, (Barents Observer, 2010)
http://barentsobserver.com/en/first-opening-schengen-regime-russia.
44
Atle Staalesen, “A 690 meter long tunnel will be part of new infrastructure connecting the Norwegian
border town of Kirkenes with Russia”, (Barents Observer, 2014)
http://barentsobserver.com/en/borders/2014/10/norway-builds-cross-border-tunnel-russia-01-10.
42
11
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
cultural and sports exchange”.45 In the 1980s, a women’s cultural exchange was created,
stimulated by the glasnost era. Local authorities claimed to have observed Norwegians
with negative attitudes towards Russians and therefore, advised adding more cross-border
integrated projects.46 Then in 1993 the Barents Region was formally opened for the
purpose of establishing international cooperation after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Norway’s headquarters within the Barents Region is in Kirkenes. Despite the number of
projects and programs promoting economic and social development, local individuals
claim that, “It was the opening of the [Russian] border that really brought about the big
change”.47 In this spirit, Kirkenes and Nikel were approved as twin cities on June 9th
2008.48 While the border’s first official opening followed the fall of the Soviet Union,
May 29th 2012 marked the second opening.
The second opening of the Norway-Russia border includes 30 kilometers of
borderland away from the political boundary. Residents of this area can pass visa-free
into their area’s counterpart for up to 15 days.49 The residents must first apply for a threeyear resident ID card.50 The twinning of the cities and the visa-free area have created a
common labor market, allowing individuals to daily cross the border for work. Other
border crossing motivations include: visiting family, travel, shopping, and business. This
program has increased the number of border crossing substantially. Over 50,000 visa-free
border crossings took place in the first year and that number is predicted to double for
Arvid Viken, Brynhild Granas and Toril Nyseth, “Kirkenes: An Industrial Site Reinvested as a Border
Town” Acta Borealia 25 (2008) 30.
46
Viken, Granas, and Nyseth, “Kirkenes”.
47
Viken, Granas, and Nyseth, “Kirkenes”, 32.
48
Lassi Heininen, Arctic Yearbook 2013, (Akureyri: Northern Research Forum, 2013) 151.
49
Thomas Nilsen, “Norway makes it even easier for Barents Russians to apply for visa”, (Barents
Observer, 2014) http://barentsobserver.com/en/borders/2014/10/norway-makes-it-even-easier-barentsrussians-apply-visa-03-10.
50
Heininen, Arctic Yearbook 2013, 155.
45
12
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
following years, noting that about 15% of the trips are related to Norwegians and 85% to
Russians.51 It is also important to recognize that the region has about 250,000 border
crossings, one-fifth of those being visa-free.52 The Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas
Gahr Store emphasized that Norway has been one of the first Schengen countries to
liberalize the visa regime. Furthermore Store commented to the Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov that he expects a larger visa-free regime with Russia in the near future due
to increasing cooperation between the twin cities.53
ANALYSIS
The five existing Arctic visa-free areas will be further evaluated based on the
rationale behind their development, the subsequent degree of regional mobility, and their
trends’ support of future visa-free area predictions. This evaluation utilizes realism, as a
theory of international relations, to frame the situation in which state governments take
priority over the historic and existing needs of populations located along their borders.
Opposing liberalism, realism, as used in this paper, focuses on individual states as the
most important actors and on the fact that law only applies within their boundaries54 as
defined by Thomas Hobbes55. The following sections will evaluate how domestic politics
shape international relations and the treaties that define visa-free areas, primarily out of
self-interest, and not liberal international cooperation.
Solutions to Policy Problems
Thomas Nilsen, “Tear this barbed wire fence down”, (Barents Observer, 2009)
http://barentsobserver.com/en/sections/opinion/tear-barbed-wire-fence-down.
52
Heininen, Arctic Yearbook 2013, 155.
53
Heininen, Arctic Yearbook 2013, 156.
54
Ian Hall, “The Triumph of Anti-liberalism? Reconciling Radicalism to Realism in International Relations
Theory” Political Studies Review 9 (UK: 2011), 42-52.
55
Alexander Moseley, “Political Realism” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (UK: 2014)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/.
51
13
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
The five visa-free areas in the Arctic were all developed as solutions to localized
problems. These problems cross states’ political boundaries and include: subsistence
activities, family ties, and the opening of markets. These problems emerged since all of
the regions were inhabited by a single nation prior to states’ declarations. Once the local
populations were superseded by political superpowers, their interests, needs, and
movement in the regions were compromised. Therefore the visa-free areas presented a
method for managing both state and international affairs.
The first policy problem, subsistence activities, applies primarily to the Reindeer
herding population in Sapmi and the American Indian population between Canada and
the U.S.A. While all five of the populations living in the Arctic’s visa-free areas partake
in subsistence activities, twos visa-free areas were developed as solutions to the policy
problems that emerged once states divided up the landscape. These subsistence activities
refer to not only hunting and gathering activities but also to trading and the production of
non-commercial goods. Before Europeans arrived in North America and before other
European populations staked out jurisdiction of northern Scandinavia, local populations
moved freely. The cessation of these movements forced nations of the Arctic to either
continue traveling, albeit illegally, or to adapt their cultural and historic practices to only
localized resources. Neither option would prove acceptable in the modern day; therefore,
this first policy problem was addressed in the 18th century both in Europe and North
America.
The second policy problem addressed was family ties and applies to the
indigenous population residing within the Alaska-Chukotka visa-free area. While other
indigenous populations also faced this problem, once states divided up the landscape, the
14
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
visa-free treaty between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. explicitly states familial exchanges
as the fundamental reason for creating the Alaska-Chukotka visa-free area. While the
governments desired to end illegal crossings of the Bering Strait, continuing
communication within this single nation also provides regional stability. Unfortunately,
the federal governments of Russia and the United Sates saw each other as trouble for the
region’s stability so the localized linkages within the indigenous population had an
influence on the decisions made at the federal level(s), thousands of miles away. As a
result, while individuals such as Dr. Sasikumar, an international security specialist at
Stanford University, claim that “easing mobility restrictions is a way to promote stability
and integration in the region”56, negative political will of the adversary states has
historically outweighed the regional assets.
The third Arctic policy problem, opening of markets, applies to the Schengen area
and the Russia-Norway visa-free area. This policy problem relates equally to the local
population as it does to the broader population affected by the market. In looking
forward, markets are the largest concern of the immediate future. The new RussiaNorway visa-free area boosts increased movement of localized workers and companies.
As market concerns continue to claim the principal interest of state governments, it is
most likely that this problem will be the most common reason for instituting visa-free
areas. Moreover, as the global economy becomes more integrated in terms of free trade
and economic policy, the movement of goods and services similarly require improved
mobility.
Karthika Sasikumar, Serbia “Enters” Europe: International Mobility and the Redrawing of State
Boundaries, (Mediterranean Affairs, 2013) 73.
56
15
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Visa-free areas addressed these three policy problems, which were each
intensified by conflicts between the bordering states. Importantly each of these areas
deals with conflicts and challenges experienced by the local population. As a solution to
policy problems, these visa-free areas have returned a degree of mobility back to the
populations that resided in the Arctic before it was divided between political superpowers
and governed according to their political will.
Effect of Governance on Mobility
The policy problems that emerged after states territorialized the Arctic reinforced
the role of governance and the political climate’s influence over the regional civil society.
Civil society in the Arctic often has had strained relations with the state governments, due
to their existence as hinterlands. Moreover, only in recent history have Arctic
communities begun to build efforts and organizations that carry their message to their
central governments in a form that matches the governing body. For example the Idle No
More movement in Canada has recently used hunger strikes and civil disobedience to
convey its concerns around the caretaking of terrestrial lands and waterways.57 While
each visa-free area’s local population had some influence on the federal government in
power, the governing powers take theoretical, political, and institutional forms when
effecting mobility.58
The theoretical transnational civil society focuses foremost on the relationship
between law and community. Christodoulidis, a professor of legal theory, claims that
civil society is represented only by ongoing practice, rather than by a pre-determined
“The Story” (Idle No More, 2014) http://www.idlenomore.ca/story.
Grainne de Burca and Neil Walker, “Law and Transnational Civil Society: Upsetting the Agenda?”,
European Law Journal 9(2003) 389.
57
58
16
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
framework.59 This theoretical framework of governance both directly and by adjusting
accordingly affects civil society. Russia-Norway’s recent development, to address local
economic goods and services, exemplifies an open governmental impact on mobility. The
political transnational civil society refers to specific contexts and movements,
recognizing the individuals and organizations that consist of its support. This political
exchange strategically signifies its objective, such as democracy or economic building.60
Finally, institutional transnational civil society regards a specific form, such as the EU or
a dispute settlement treaty. Through institutionalism, governance’s adopted rules and
norms are established. The Schengen Area appropriately represents the institutional
governance, since the area comprises of the states party to the European Union and the
European Free Trade Association. These three forms of governance around civil society
show the tension between civil society and the government. Therefore, successful or
positive developments around local policy problems will likely result in change when
they correspond with the political climate.
Increasing and Decreasing Mobility
Across the Arctic, visa-free areas have been adopted in order for the local
population to move freely across typically sparsely populated areas. Some of these cases
simply formalized and recognized systems that were in place before the state
governments were established. Some visa-free areas were established also as a
demonstration of political good will. Looking past spoken governmental commitments,
this section will analyze whether the local populations of the five specific areas’ mobility
has increased or decreased since the creation of the areas.
59
60
de Burca and Walker, “Law and Transnational Civil Society”, 389.
de Burca and Walker, “Law and Transnational Civil Society”, 389.
17
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
The visa-free area between the US and Canada, set up under the Jay Treaty,
formalized a preexisting practice. Throughout the following 250 years the local
population experienced periods of increased mobility but also decreased mobility as well.
In the present day, despite the visa-free area, mobility has decreased. There are several
ways in which the mobility has decreased. First, before the visa-free area populations
moved without checkpoints between present day Canada and the US. Second, similar to
the times when mobility decreased, often individuals claim that this right is not
recognized by current border patrol. This border confusion has caused the creation of
more than one law firm and efforts improve individuals’ understandings of their rights.61
Therefore, while governments in their own interests are decreasing the mobility of
indigenous people passing from Canada to the US, the public sector has on a smaller
scale has benefited from increasing mobility.
The reindeer herding between Sweden and Norway, much like the subsistence
movements of the indigenous people moving from Canada to the US, existed before the
states’ boundaries were drawn in the 18th century. Yet, their rights were recognized in the
18th century and generally maintained the same character and purpose they had before the
Lapp Codicil. However, boundaries gained importance and the mobility of the reindeer
herders of Sampi decreased due to many European wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Today, the Saami await the ratification of the Nordic Saami Convention draft. Since the
areas establishment, the Saami have experienced decreasing mobility. A regional
convention would, however, return the original rights of the Saami and if Russia is
included, this would result in the greatest increase in mobility since its establishment.
61
Boos, American Indians born in Canada.
18
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
The Schengen Area covers more than the areas of land that the reindeer herders
occupy. Looking past Russia, the Schengen Area covers the entirety of Norway, Sweden,
and Finland. Since the Schengen Area contains several nations, compared to the other
visa-free areas, the mobility there is seen as increasing. Since 1995, with the
establishment of the Schengen Area, individuals residing in the far north can cross
political boundaries more easily. Since these individuals have an additional Schengen
identity, they can pass for any duration within the Schengen Area. The population
residing within the Schengen area has experienced an increase in mobility and will likely
see their future mobility increase as the region widens. Many states outside of the
Schengen Area, such as Russia, have applied to allow Schengen citizens to enter their
states without visas, as a way to improve their domestic economy. The Schengen Area is
one of two areas in the Arctic that is experiencing an increase in mobility.
In the last century the mobility of residents within the Chukotka-Alaska visa-free
area has fluctuated drastically. Political tensions have been the sole drivers of the
functionality of the visa-free area. Schweitzer and Gray62 describe the increased mobility
of the 1990’s as:
“after 40 years of Cold War separation. On the Russian side, Siberian Yupik
residents actively used this opportunity to visit their friends and relatives on St.
Lawrence Island and on the Seward Peninsula, while the Chukchis were involved
in these travels to a lesser degree. The new affiliation of Siberian Yupiks with the
larger Inuit world outside of Russia (Alaska, Canada, Greenland) influenced the
formation in Chukotka of the “Regional Society of the Eskimos of Chukotka” in
Peter Schweitzer and Patty Gray, “The Chukchis and Siberian Yupiks of the Russian Far East.” in
Endangered Peoples of the Arctic: Struggles to Survive and Thrive. (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000)
22-3.
62
19
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
August of 1990. Meanwhile, an “Association of Lesser-Numbered Peoples of
Chukotka” was also created (meant to represent all of Chukotka’s Native
peoples), and the two organizations continue to exist side-by side. Within a few
years, both a Reindeer Herders’ Union and a Sea Mammal Hunters’ Union were
created to represent these two predominantly-Native professional groups in
Chukotka”.
Originally a symbol of goodwill between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S., the visa-free area has
experienced an increasing number of complications following the turn of the century.
These complications include border patrol that have denied individuals the right to enter
at the border, the inability to fly from one side to the other, and recent developments that
have increased the difficulty of moving across the Bering Strait. Therefore, like the U.S.Canada and the reindeer herding visa-free areas, the population residing in the ChukotkaAlaska visa-free area’s mobility is decreasing.
The new Russia-Norway visa-free area, only ratified in 2012, is the second area
that is increasing the mobility of local residents. It has used the twinning of two cities as a
model for local movement. Unlike the other visa-free areas that grant free movement for
the entire populations, the Russia-Norway visa-free area is limited to those residing
within 30 kilometers of the border. In an effort to increase the scale of individuals
included, Russia and Norway are entering a new legal domain. They are the first
Schengen and non-Schengen members to initiate such an agreement and one of the few
areas based purely on location of residence, rather than national identity. In the hopes of
increasing business and interaction within the region, Russia and Norway have increased
the regional populations’ mobility.
20
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Regional governance most directly influences the three policy problems:
subsistence activities, family, and opening markets. Other reasons for increasing and
decreasing mobility involve regional actors and causation outside of the governments.
However, with all of the policy problems and resultant governance structures combined,
the future of visa-free areas in the Arctic can be predicted. By using previous policy
trends to understand the future’s potential policy challenges, a domestic, economic, and
realist perspective emerge.
Predicting Future Visa-free Areas in the Arctic
In order to predict future Arctic visa-free areas, as well as the future of existing
visa-free areas, the increasing and decreasing mobility trends can be applied to current
policy challenges. The increases of mobility revolve around political will to collaborate
and supportive institutional backing while decreases are attributed to political, security,
and economic stressors. Policy challenges that will demand more attention in the 21st
century include: regional economies and political collaboration. While subsistence and
family ties were significant challenges in the 19th and 20th centuries for nations that span
political borders, they are not focal points of general nation-wide policy challenges.
Increasing regional mobility has previously been supported by a collaborative
political will between the involved states and by institutional backing. The Schengen
Area exemplifies strong institutional backing, and future visa-free areas along the borders
of the area are predicted. Just as importantly, the collaborative will between the U.S. and
the U.S.S.R. made the Alaska-Chukotka visa-free area possible. At least one of these two
factors is requisite for the establishment of a visa-free area, despite the intensity of the
local needs. Without local or regional support, civil society can do little to influence
21
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
federal boundaries and treaty agreements. The law firm and written explanatory
documents to help individuals experience the highest degree of their rights, under The Jay
Treaty, when passing between the U.S. and Canada represent how civil society can
deepen mobility in the Arctic.63 However, in order for mobility to be increased, via
widening, mutual political will or institutional backing has to be present.
Decreasing mobility in the Arctic has previously been due to political, security or
economic stressors. Political stressors refer to the degraded relations between the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R. after WWII and throughout the Cold War. This increase of animosity
affected more than political officials by closing off borders to local residents. Security
stressors, for example regarding the U.S. after 9/11, hurt the U.S.’s relations with
bordering states, despite their exclusion from the event. This threat on security resulted in
the U.S.’s development of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, requiring all
individuals traveling from the Western Hemisphere to show a passport or approved
governmental document. Economic stressors have also decreased mobility, in relation to
recent political tension in U.S.-Russia relations following the implementation of
sanctions in reaction to the annexation of Crimea. This political event, far from the
Alaska-Chukotka visa-free area, played an extensive role in deteriorating the political and
economic relations between the governments. Sanctions and other U.S. embargos have
been met with Russian push-back, deteriorating their improving relations of the 1990s.
These three stressors can overlap and decrease the mobility of nations along border
regions.
“Border Crossing Rights Under the Jay Treaty”, (Pine Tree Legal Assistance, 2014)
http://www.ptla.org/border-crossing-rights-jay-treaty.
63
22
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
The foreign policy challenges, in relation to the development of visa-free areas, of
the 21st century in the Arctic revolve primarily around improving the quality of life of the
Arctic residents, collaborating in order to improve resource extraction, and creating better
access to international waters to increase shipping. More specifically, Russia lists
resource extraction and shipping as their top policy challenges.64 Canada focuses on the
individuals in the North65, and Norway66 focuses on extraction, the environment, and its
relations with Russia. Russia could improve their technology by collaborating with
Norway.67 While many of these Arctic states already have visa-free areas for various
populations in the North, collaboration for economic and quality of life research would
provide the Arctic with new visa-free opportunities. Importantly, foreign policy
challenges do not end at a political border but cross from one state to another. Visa-free
areas could be one solution to the challenges of the 21st century.
All of the existing visa-free areas were solutions to a policy challenge. While their
ability to increase mobility has waxed and waned, the more recently developed areas
have mostly improved mobility. Therefore, looking forward to future visa-free areas, one
predicts that future areas will also increase mobility, especially if they have institutional
support. Seeing the influence of economics in all world regions, one can expect economic
factors to have the largest role in the development of visa-free areas and in improving
Arctic mobility. Despite future emergences of conflict within the Arctic, if the political
Katarzyna Zysk, Russia’s Arctic Strategy: Ambitions and Constraints, (Washington DC: National
Defense University, 2010)
65
Canada’s Northern Strategy Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future, (Ottawa, Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, 2009).
66
The Norwegian Government’s High North Strategy, (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2006)
www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/strategien.pdf.
67
Niklas Witte, “The Barents Sea Conflict: Who Gets the Hydrocarbon Reserves?” last edited 2013,
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/758/3/the-barents-sea-conflict-russia-and-norway-competing-overfossil-fuel-riches-in-the-arctic (Oct 2014).
64
23
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
climate maintains its current status, then more visa-free areas and increased mobility can
be expected.
Conclusion
Even though mobility continues to increase and decrease, it remains an essential
need for those residing in the Arctic. Mobility can act as a supportive mode of adaptation
for impending climate alterations and extreme weather events, as well as a multinational
framework for regional collaboration. Prior to and following the Cold War, the AlaskaChukotka visa-free area acted as a political demonstration of goodwill between the two
states. However, Arctic visa-free areas are too difficult for civil society or regional
citizens to establish, leaving the task to state governments with positive political climates
and relations.
Policy challenges and the regional political climate also determine the feasibility
of the establishment of a visa-free area. Looking forward, political challenges seem likely
to shift from a focus around defining and defending jurisdiction to focusing on the quality
of life, collaboration in resource extraction, and shipping in the Arctic. Visa-free areas
could assist these challenges by increasing the dialogue on environmental and climatic
trends in order to produce Arctic climatic trends from scientific and traditional
knowledge sources. Other challenges can be addressed by increasing collaboration
between states around gas and oil extractive technologies and by increasing dialogue
between states as they face rapidly increasing numbers of shipping routes and foreign
interests. As activity in the Arctic increases, populations will face unpredictable
challenges, which they must continually adapt to in order to overcome.
24
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
While visa-free areas are perceived differently than UN or EU regulations, they
have been successful in a few models as regional initiatives. Visa-free areas increase
mobility amongst local populations residing in the Schengen Area and between Norway
and Russia. As regional initiatives, these areas constantly face the threat of a worsening
political climate. The Arctic’s visa-free areas must adjust to global changes while
recognizing the needs of the local populations. As a model for political, economic, and
environmental collaboration, recently developed visa-free areas in the Arctic have
improved mobility, reflect both the emerging needs of local populations and the historical
legacies of the regional political climates, and if relative stability remains, then more
visa-free areas and increased mobility can be expected.
25
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Appendix 1
Image of Sapmi
26
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Appendix 2
The United States of America in 1812 (U.S.-Canada)
27
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Appendix 3
Schengen Area
28
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Appendix 4
Alaska Native Languages (Chukotka-Alaska)
29
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Appendix 5
Border Area Map (Norway-Russia)
30
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Ahren, Mattias; Scheinin, Martin, and John Henriksen, The Nordic Sami Convention:
The International Human Rights, Self-Determination and other Central Provisions.
Journal of Indigenous Peoples Rights 3 (2007).
Alaska-Russian Far East Service. 2014. InterPacific Aviation and Marketing.
http://www.airrussia.us/air-tickets/alaska-russian-far-east.html (Oct. 2014).
Atger, Anais. 2008. The Abolition of Internal Order Checks in an Enlarged Schengen
Area. CEPS.
Banks, Nigel and Timo Koivurova. 2013. The Proposed Nordic Saami Convention:
National and International Dimensions. Hart Publishing.
Bellfy, Phil. Migration and the Unmaking of America. Journal of American Ethnic
History. Spring 2001.
Bevins, Charles. 1974. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States
of America 1887-1949. Department of State: Washington DC.
Bonnen, Preben and Michael Sosted. 2003. The Origin, Development and Perspectives of
Nordic Co-operation in a New and Enlarged European Union. University of Aarhus.
Boos, Greg. 2013. American Indians Born in Canada and the Right of Free Access to the
United States. Border Policy Research Institute: Bellingham, Washington.
“Border area map”. Image. 2014. Nordic Labor Journal. <
http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/nyheter/news-2010/article.2010-11-02.5541810025>
(Dec 2014).
Border Crossing Rights Under the Jay Treaty. 2014. Pine Tree Legal Assistance
http://www.ptla.org/border-crossing-rights-jay-treaty (Oct 2014).
Boyd, Benny. “Alaska Native Languages”. Image. ANLC. 2014. <
http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/NPE/images/ANLmap.gif> (Dec. 2014).
Canada’s Northern Strategy Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future. 2009. Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and NonStatus Indians: Ottawa.
Chukotka and Alaska: Visa-Free Travels. Chukotka Autonomous Region. 2013.
http://www.chukotka.org/en/authorities/visa-registration/ (Oct 2014).
de Burca, Grainne and Neil Walker. 2003. Law and Transnational Civil Society:
Upsetting the Agenda? European Law Journal Volume 9, pp. 387-400.
31
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Declaration from the First Sami Parliamentarian Conference. 2005. Jokkmokk: Sami
Parliament.
European Union. 1957. Treaty Establishing the European Community (Consolidated
Version). Rome Treaty. available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39c0.html (14
November 2014]).
European Commission: Directorate-General Energy and Transport. 2007. The Northern
Transport Axis. WSP Finland.
Forrest, Scott. 1997. Territoriality and State-Sami Relations. University of Northern
British Columbia. http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/HistoryCulture/Sami/samisf.html
Groux, Celeste. 2013. MNN: Imaginary Line. Mohawk Nation News.
http://mohawknationnews.com/blog/tag/u-s-vs-kanento-paul-diabo/ (Oct 2014).
Hall, Ian. 2011. The Triumph of Anti-liberalism? Reconciling Radicalism to Realism in
International Relations Theory. Political Studies Review Vol 9, 42-52. Political Science
Association: UK.
Heininen, Lassi. 2013. Arctic Yearbook 2013. Akureyri, Iceland: Northern Research
Forum.
Koivurova, Timo. 2008. The Draft Nordic Saami Convention: Nations Working
Together. University of Lapland.
Krauss, Michael. 1994. Crossroads? A Twentieth-Century History of Contacts across the
Bering Strait. Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim, pp. 365-379, Smithsonian
Institution.
Lantto, Patrik. 2010. Borders, citizenship and change: the case of the Sami people, 17512008. Taylor & Francis.
Moseley, Alexander. 2014. “Political Realism” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: UK.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/ (Oct 2014).
Networks for Peace and Development. 2005. High Level Group chaired by Loyola de
Palacio. European Commission.
Niemenkari, Arto. 2002. The Finnish Border Security Concept. Geneva Centre for the
Democratic Control of Armed Forces: Geneva.
Nilsen, Thomas. 2010. First Opening in the Schengen-regime with Russia. Barents
Observer. http://barentsobserver.com/en/first-opening-schengen-regime-russia (Oct
2014).
32
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Nilsen, Thomas. 2014. Norway makes it even easier for Barents Russians to apply for
visa. Barents Observer. http://barentsobserver.com/en/borders/2014/10/norway-makes-iteven-easier-barents-russians-apply-visa-03-10 (Oct 2014).
The Norwegian Government’s High North Strategy. 2006. Norwegian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/strategien.pdf (Oct 2014).
Otter, William. “The United States of America in 1812”. Image. 2010. Historic
Archeological Research,
http://www.1812kentuckybattleflag.com/kentucky_in_war_of_1812.html (Dec 2014).
Peers, Steve. 2013. The Future of the Schengen System. Swedish Institute for European
Policy Studies: Stockholm.
Sasikumar, Karthika. 2013. Serbia “Enters” Europe: International Mobility and the
Redrawing of State Boundaries. Mediterranean Affairs, Inc.
“Schengen Area”. Image. 2014. Schengen Visa Info. <
http://www.schengenvisainfo.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/schengen_eu_countries.jpg
> (Dec 2014).
Schweitzer, Peter and Patty Gray. 2000. The Chukchis and Siberian Yupiks of the
Russian Far East. Endangered Peoples of the Arctic: Struggles to Survive and Thrive.
Greenwood Press: Westport, CT.
Sim1Travel. [Image of Sapmi]. Image. <
http://s2.photobucket.com/user/sim1travels/media/swe_north_alesjaure/Skand3.jpg.html>
(Dec 2014).
Staalesen, Atle. 2014. A 690 meter long tunnel will be part of new infrastructure
connecting the Norwegian border town of Kirkenes with Russia. Barents Observer.
http://barentsobserver.com/en/borders/2014/10/norway-builds-cross-border-tunnel-russia01-10 (Oct 2014).
The Story. 2014. Idle No More. http://www.idlenomore.ca/story (Nov 2014).
“The Treaty of Ghent”. The Way of 1812. Barents Observer, 2014.
http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/treaty-ghent/ (Nov 2014).
Tiersky, Ronald and Erik Jones. 2014. Europe Today: A Twenty-first Century
Introduction. Rowman & Littlefield: United Kingdom.
Viken, Arvid, Brynhild Granas and Toril Nyseth. 2008. Kirkenes: An Industrial Site
Reinvested as a Border Town. Acta Borealia Vol. 25.
Visits to Siberia by American Eskimos. 1938. Department of State: Washington DC.
33
HOW HAVE VISA-FREE AREAS INCREASED AND DECREASED MOBILITY IN THE ARCTIC?
Witte, Niklas. 2013. The Barents Sea Conflict: Who Gets the Hydrocarbon Reserves?
The International Student Journal. http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/758/3/thebarents-sea-conflict-russia-and-norway-competing-over-fossil-fuel-riches-in-the-arctic
(Oct 2014).
Zysk, Katarzyna. 2010. Russia’s Arctic Strategy: Ambitions and Constraints. National
Defense University: Washington D.C.
Works Consulted
6th Barents Parliamentary Conference. 2013. Harstad, Norway.
Casimir, Michael. 1992. Mobility and territoriality: social and spatial boundaries among
foragers, fishers, pastoralists, and peripatetics.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 December 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external
land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen
Convention (OJ L 29, 3 February 2007, p. 3)
Gray, Patty. 2007. Chukotka’s Indigenous intellectuals and subversion of Indigenous
activism in the 1990s. ÉTUDES/INUIT/STUDIES 310.2: 143-161.
Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on U.S.Russian People-to-People Contacts. 2002. White House.
Kocking, Barbara. 2007. A comparative view of indigenous citizenship issues.
Citizenship Studies. Toutledge.
Petterson, Trude and Thomas Nilsen. 2013. Visa-free zone ready for expansion. Barents
Observer. http://barentsobserver.com/en/borders/2013/12/visa-free-zone-readyexpansion-10-12 (Oct 2014).
Reinert, Erik. 2008. Adapting to Climate change in Reindeer Herding: The Nation-State
as a Problem and Solution. Technology Governance.
34