Abstract The Trump administration’s reignited rhetoric about acquiring Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) has revived public and geopolitical debate over whether the United States (U.S.) could purchase the island from Denmark. This article situates that debate within the legal history of territorial transactions involving inhabited lands, which were often conducted between sovereign powers with little regard for the rights, wishes, or political agency of the populations concerned. It then examines the legal implications of a proposed transfer of sovereignty over Greenland under contemporary international law and argues that such a transfer cannot properly be understood as a purely bilateral territorial transaction. To support this claim, the article draws on two distinct but cumulative legal frameworks. First, the Greenlandic people are recognized as a people under international law with a right to self-determination. Because a transfer of sovereignty would alter Greenland’s political status, any such arrangement must give genuine effect to the freely expressed will of the Greenlandic people. Second, Greenlandic Inuit hold distinct rights as an Indigenous people, including Indigenous self-determination, autonomy and self-government, participation, and rights relating to culture, lands, territories, and natural resources. These rights would survive any change of sovereignty and constrain both the process through which a territorial arrangement might be developed and the authority exercisable by any successor state. The article describes these cumulative protections as the “double lock” of self-determination. The term does not imply that international law categorically prohibits territorial transfers or grants an unqualified Indigenous veto over Greenland’s external political status. However, it captures the proposition that Greenland cannot lawfully be treated as an object of exclusively interstate deliberations. Instead, any proposed change of sovereignty must centre the Greenlandic people’s self-determination and respect the continuing rights of Greenlandic Inuit.
Abstract On 19 February 2026, the EFTA Court delivered its advisory opinion in Case E-6/25 ( Saga Subsea ), concerning the application of the European Union’s Temporary Agency Work Directive to employees of a temporary-work agency working on board a vessel used in connection with petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf. The opinion affirms the ‘functional’ approach to the interpretation of the geographical scope of application of the EEA Agreement, which starkly differs from the Norwegian government’s position on the matter. This article examines the potential implications of the advisory opinion for Norway’s offshore wind energy sector, with a particular focus on the Utsira Nord floating offshore wind project. First, the article explores how the EFTA Court’s interpretation, if upheld by the Norwegian Supreme Court, could impact offshore wind development by mandating stricter compliance with EEA internal market rules, including non-discrimination and public procurement principles. Subsequently, the article considers the potential for enhanced environmental regulatory requirements, which could necessitate aligning the ongoing Utsira Nord project with EU directives not yet fully incorporated into the EEA framework. Finally, the article provides reflections on the legal, regulatory, and political challenges that may emerge if the Supreme Court departs from the advisory opinion, as well as the broader ramifications for Norway’s offshore wind ambitions.
Abstract This contribution examines the participation of Indigenous representatives from Russia in international forums, particularly within the United Nations, and the domestic consequences associated with such engagement. Drawing on cases from December 2025, including those of Daria Egereva and Valentina Sovkina, the analysis shows how federal security measures and procedural actions are frequently connected to involvement in international advocacy networks rather than to clearly defined illegal conduct. In the current Russian political context, international engagement in which Indigenous representatives publicly raise concerns about state actions affecting Indigenous communities entails significant political and legal risks. The cases highlight how international advocacy by Indigenous representatives comes into conflict with the Russian state, illustrating the risks to the protection of Indigenous rights, human rights, and environmental rights, and showing how state measures can limit the participation of Indigenous communities in decisions affecting their lands and livelihoods.
Abstract The Arctic is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the intertwined crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and geopolitical tensions. This article explores the evolving governance landscape of the Arctic Ocean, which has reached a critical juncture due to the breakdown of traditional frameworks rooted in post-Cold War paradigms. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent geopolitical fallout have exposed the fragility of regional cooperation rooted in the primacy of ‘Arctic States,’ challenging their ability to address the region’s complex and globalized challenges. This crisis, however, is not just a breakdown but a catalyst for change. Using the concept of Post-Normal Science ( PNS ) as a theoretical lens, this article critically examines the role of the A5/A8 states in stabilizing Arctic Ocean Governance, for better and for worse. The erosion of the stabilizing effect and the exclusivity that once defined Arctic Ocean Governance has created a significant agency vacuum, providing fertile ground for new actors to assert influence in Arctic affairs. This shift is reshaping governance dynamics in the region. Non-traditional stakeholders, ranging from global powers like China and the EU to Indigenous communities, NGO s, and private enterprises, are increasingly stepping forward to compete for agency. Mapping the roles and narratives of emerging actors is a step toward understanding how different actors frame problems, define priorities, and seek to influence governance processes.
Abstract The environmental and social challenges, along with the legal and technical realities, of offshore oil and gas development in the Canadian and Russian Arctic are multifaceted. Both nations possess significant hydrocarbon reserves in the Arctic, which are becoming more and more important as more accessible resources are depleted. However, the harsh Arctic conditions pose significant technical challenges for exploration and extraction. Environmental and social concerns are also prominent, as oil and gas activities threaten fragile ecosystems and the livelihoods of Indigenous communities. This article explores the commonalities and differences in the way the two countries approach these untapped resources. Both countries are subject to international responsibilities related to the protection of the marine environment, climate change, and Indigenous rights. But the way they are approaching these responsibilities is very different. Currently Canada has a moratorium on offshore oil and gas activities in the Arctic, while Russia is actively pursuing development. The article describes the domestic systems governing Arctic offshore exploration in the two countries in the current economic and political context. It identifies transboundary issues such as marine pollution, associated greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts on Indigenous rights that require cooperation between the Arctic states, while also noting the associated difficulties. This analysis reflects the state of knowledge and data as of 12 August 2025.
