A Crack in the Transnational. Relations Between Diaconal Associations in Nordic Countries During World War II

The history of <scp>NFOG</scp> and <i>Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica</i> 1921–2011

Finland, along with the other Nordic or Scandinavian countries, belongs to the so-called civil law tradition. Countries following this tradition include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. All of these nations are advanced, industrialized welfare states. The Nordic countries have pursued economic, social and cultural development along similar lines, and have cooperated intensively in legal and political matters.Various means of Nordic cooperation have been developed since the Second World War, and these interstate activities have become even more diversified since the 1960s. The objectives and organs of cooperation between the States were laid down in a special treaty signed in 1962. The treaty covers cooperation in the legal, cultural, social and economic spheres as well as in traffic and environmental matters. Efficient cooperation in criminal law is based on a variety of sources, consisting primarily of the treaties between the Nordic countries, multilateral European conventions, common basic approaches in crime control and human rights policies, uniform legislation in relevant areas, and established practice between state authorities.

The Nordic Embrace:Why the Nordic Countries Welcome Asia to the Arctic Table Leiv Lunde (bio) A range of Asian countries—China, India, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—were welcomed by the Arctic countries as observers to the Arctic Council in May 2013. This was a controversial decision long resisted by Arctic powers Russia and Canada, with the United States undecided until right before the final decision. The Nordic countries, on the other hand, led by Norway, emphasized the positive aspects of Asia’s interest and saw the region’s greater participation in Arctic affairs as strengthening governance and making the Arctic Council a more relevant and future-oriented forum. This essay examines the Nordic countries—Denmark (including Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—as Arctic nations and describes their Arctic geography, identity, and economic, political, and security interests. It then seeks to explain the Nordic countries’ basically positive attitude toward Asian involvement in the Arctic, while also identifying the limits and elements of skepticism that still exist. In concluding, the essay looks into the future and discusses challenges and opportunities for the Nordic countries arising from increased Asian ventures into Arctic lands and waters. Nordic Arctic Interests There are commonalities as well as differences in the Nordic countries’ Arctic interests. The commonalities among the Nordic states are most striking: history, geography, culture, trade, and politics today knit them closely together such that they cooperate intimately in Nordic as well as international institutions. Sweden and Norway fought a brief war in 1814 and were on the verge of war as recently as 1905. Yet despite this history, as well as their different experiences during World War II and varying security alliances to date, the Nordic countries enjoy strong and peaceful cooperation along virtually every thinkable dimension. Yet one of the surprises meeting the Asian countries in their quest for Nordic support for their participation in the Arctic Council was the relative lack of a formal Arctic identity in the Nordic region. Arctic politics [End Page 39] is decided in the capitals located far south of the Arctic, and there are no Arctic budgets or regional planning units in national ministries. Even the small minority of indigenous peoples in the high north (mainly the Saami people) pay their taxes to the national governments, and the majority of the Arctic Nordic populations view themselves primarily as national citizens rather than Arctic citizens in any significant sense. Nevertheless, the Arctic matters a lot to the Nordic countries, and increasingly so in the wake of growing global attention to the region’s affairs. A potentially important difference between these states stems from Norway and Iceland not being members of the European Union (EU). Back in May 2013, for example, the admittance of the five Asian countries to the Arctic Council hung in the balance partly due to a spat between the EU (also an applicant for a formal observer role) and Canada over seal hunting. Canada is furious at the EU for boycotting Canadian sealskin production, which is seen as a traditional custom and important business opportunity in Canada’s Arctic region. Although the Nordic EU members found this spat frustratingly difficult and were skeptical of some of the EU’s reasoning, they had to align with Brussels. For this and other reasons, Norway became a major broker in Kiruna, ensuring that a decision was made. The Asian countries, along with Italy, were accepted as formal observers, while the EU still must wait in the wings for some hard-won concessions from intransigent Canada—the current Arctic Council president. The differences among the Nordic countries—which again are moderate and should be seen in a holistic context—are mainly due to three factors: • Geography. Some Nordic countries are Arctic coastal states, while others are not. • Economy. The level of economic activity and interest in the Arctic differs significantly among the Nordic countries. • Political and security alliances. Norway and Iceland are outside the EU, while Finland and Sweden remain outside NATO. Norway is by most definitions the most important Nordic Arctic country, trailing only Russia in global Arctic significance. Mainland Norway includes considerable land, coast, and ocean areas that reside north of the Arctic Circle...

The Nordic Africa Institute (NAI) in Uppsala is a research, documentation and information centre on modern Africa for the Nordic countries. It promotes research and studies on Africa in the Nordic regions as well as collaboration between African and Nordic researchers. It also disseminates information about current African issues. The institute is a public agency under the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Its director is Carin Norberg. The Nordic countries finance the Institute and members from all Nordic countries sit on its Programme and Research Council. One of the core activities of the institute is the library, which serves as a documentation centre for research and studies on modern Africa in the Nordic regions. Uppsala is the major centre for Africana collections in Sweden, although Gothenberg University has an African language collection and also has material relevant to Africa-orientated scholars in their Women's History Collections. Interestingly enough, when the institute was founded in 1962, the library was the reason for it being located in Uppsala. At that time Uppsala University Library already housed a large collection of literature on African languages, ethnography, theology, archaeology, geography and history. Today, the libraries of Uppsala University and the NAI provide scholars, students and private persons interested in Africa with a rich and unique African studies collection comprising approximately 90,000 titles. Uppsala University Library covers the above-mentioned subjects as well as works that deal with African and colonial history for the period up until 1945. The collection includes letters and reports by missionaries, as well as manuscripts, many of which are from Ethiopia. In 1990, the collection consisted of approximately 30,000 titles. The Nordic Africa Institute Library collection, with its focus on modern Africa and the social sciences from the Second World War onwards, complements that of the university. The NAI collection consists of about 60,000 titles and 450 current journals covering the whole continent. It is the largest social science collection on modern Africa in the Nordic countries. Literature published in African countries is well represented alongside that from publishing houses in the North. The collection is research-oriented and mainly in English and French, but also includes material in Portuguese, Nordic /Scandinavian languages and The library also holds special collections of official publications and pamphlets. In addition, it keeps modern African fiction, maps, and a small selection of CDs, DVDs and videos of documentaries and feature films. All titles can be searched for in the library online catalogue AfricaLit at http: / / africalit.nai.uu.se, by using English geographic and thematic keywords. The library collection is largely influenced by the relationships between the Nordic countries and Africa. Emphasis is placed on East and Southern Africa in the country collection and unique material is available in the pamphlet and official publications collections. There is good coverage on the subject of liberation movements. Africa from a Nordic perspective The Institute was founded in 1962. During the 1960s there was a growing interest in developing countries and in joint Nordic projects. Yet, although development aid issues were high on the agenda for Nordic countries, there was little knowledge amongst politicians, policy makers and particularly amongst the general public about developing countries. The Institute was founded in order to meet this need for information on Africa. In 1968, a similar institute focusing on Asia was established in Copenhagen. Plans were afoot for founding an institute for Latin American studies in Oslo, but a shortage of funding and motivation put a stop to this. The Nordic countries have much in common regarding relations with Africa. All had missionaries active in Africa, no real colonial history and active civil societies. …

On March 19, 2011, an international ‘coalition of the willing’ embarked on a military intervention in Libya. The aim of the intervention was to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 calling for the use of ‘all necessary means’ to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack. The coalition imposed a no-fly zone over northern Libya and stroke against armoured units as well as Libyan air defence systems. On March 31, 2011, NATO took full command of operations. All five Nordic countries supported the intervention against the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and his government. However, their very different ways of showing their support are illustrative of the different security policies of the Nordic countries in the current world order.2 Denmark quickly deployed six F-16 fighters and one Hercules transport plane along with corresponding ground crews. As one of the most active and efficient participants in the coalition Denmark dropped more than 500 bombs. Norway also deployed six F-16 fighters with corresponding ground crews, and, tied with Denmark, Norway was recognized as the country bombing the most targets when taking into account the number of planes deployed. However, Norway withdrew its aircraft by the end of July, three months before the official end of NATO operations on October 31, after reducing the number of fighters from six to four in June. Sweden, despite not being a NATO member, sent eight JAS 39 Gripen aircrafts, but did not participate in ground attacks. Finland did not contribute militarily, and neither did Iceland for the obvious reason that it has no air force. However, Finland and Iceland – like Denmark, Norway and Sweden – condemned the actions of the Libyan government. The different positions of the five Nordic countries in the Libyan War illustrate five points about their current security policies. First, all Nordic countries are generally supportive of the current liberal world order based on values such as democracy, rule of law and human rights. Second, the willingness of the Nordic countries to support these values with military means varies along a continuum with Denmark at one end and Finland at the other. Third, the ability of the Nordic states to support these values with military means variesalong a continuum with Denmark at one end and Iceland at the other. Fourth, all Nordic countries engage in debates on international security, even when they have no direct national interests in the issues discussed, i.e. they participate in debates over the global order and how to uphold its norms and enforce its rules and regulations. Fifth, all Nordic countries are small European states facing the same dilemmas on when, how and why to engage in these issues of global order and indirect threat, but with marginally different cost-benefit analyses due to their different geopolitical locations and institutional affiliations. The Nordic position in international relations has shifted dramatically over the past century. Although the Nordics today pride themselves on internationalism and global engagement, the peripheral geopolitical position and limited military capabilities of the Nordic countries left them in the periphery of international relations during the creation and expansion of the modern European state system from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 until the end of the Second World War in 1945. During the Cold War, the Nordic states were often seen as constituting a particular Nordic bloc advocating human rights, East-West detente and North-South equality, and arguing the importance of a so-called ‘Nordic Balance’ allowing considerable freedom of action for Nordic states vis-a-vis the two superpowers. After the Cold War, the Nordic states have pursued very different agendas in their security policies. This chapter aims to identify the most important similarities and differences in the security policies of the Nordic states and to explain why the Nordic birds of a feather are no longer flocking together. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, I discuss the Nordic security community and the Nordic model in international relations. They are often viewed as two closely related unique Nordic contributions to international relations and in order to understand the Nordic states in the unipolar order, we need to understand how important concepts such as the Nordic security community and the Nordic model influenced Nordic security policies and helped shape Nordic perceptions of international relations in the recent past. Second, I argue that while the end of the Cold War and the rise of the unipolar world order initially involved a loss of identity in international relations, the Nordic states quickly adopted to the new security order for one simple reason: they were already well integrated to the US sphere of influence. However, the specific strategies that each of them chose differs in important respects from the others. Finally, I assess the prospects for Nordic security in a post-unipolar security order.

A lowering of colorectal cancer risk for the birth cohorts born around World War II (WWII) has previously been observed in Norway, a country which suffered some 20% caloric restriction during the war. The purpose of the study was to conduct a similar kind of analysis in the other Nordic countries and Estonia, which were also subjected to various degrees of energy restriction during WWII. All new cases of colorectal cancer in the Nordic countries and Estonia diagnosed between 40 and 84 years of age and born between 1874 and 1953, were collected from the national cancer registries. The incidence data were fitted to an age-period-cohort model. A transient drop in the estimated colorectal cancer incidence rate was observed for the birth cohorts born around WWII in Estonia, together with a tendency of decreased risk in Sweden and Denmark. The previously observed lowering of colorectal cancer risk for persons born during WWII in Norway also prevails in Estonia. Energy restriction is a possible explanation for these findings, since the countries suffered from varying nutritional conditions during the war. Exogenous factors acting during periods early in life may have an impact on later colorectal cancer risk.

This chapter discusses four smaller and not so well-known minority groups in the Nordic countries. The Roma and the Jews are found in all Nordic countries apart from Iceland, while the Kven is a group found in Norway and the Russians are found mainly in Finland. Among the Nordic states none of them has assumed far-reaching obligations concerning the Romani language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Nordic states have ratified many of the international legal documents concerning the protection of minorities. Persistent waves of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe revitalised Jewish culture, though the high degree of intermarriage with non-Jews enhanced assimilation in Nordic societies. Contemporary Nordic countries the Jewish communities comprise both Jews with old roots in the region as well as East European Jews many of whom arrived in the second half of the 19th century and after the Second World War.

Cooperation among the Nordic countries has been a modest affair since Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995. In particular, one can cite the decline in what previously was robust collaboration in law-making. Moreover, no new important conventions have been concluded among the countries in the 2000s.The article argues that Nordic cooperation is at a crossroads. Many external and internal threats urge increased cooperation, such as the crisis in the EU following Brexit, the influx of asylum seekers, increased tension in the Baltic Sea, and the erosion of the Nordic welfare state. The particular threats and opportunities in the Nordic countries’ Arctic regions also signal a need for more intense cooperation. This is easier said than done, however, because the western Nordic states (Denmark, Iceland and Norway) differ in terms of legal system and security policy from the eastern ones (Finland and Sweden). An additional consideration is that Iceland and Norway do not belong to the EU; instead of membership they take part in economic integration as members of the Economic European Area.After an introduction, the article provides a succinct account of the development of Nordic cooperation from before the Second World War to the present day. The third section then goes on to discuss Nordic cooperation in different areas of law and government. This is followed by an analysis of the conventions concluded among the Nordic countries and how well they have functioned. Continuing with a salient and illustrative example, the article goes on to examine and assess the attempts to draft a Nordic Saami Convention, an instrument that would apply to Saami living in Finland, Norway and Sweden.In closing, the article evaluates the future prospects for Nordic cooperation in the form of collaborative law-making and conventions. Both seem to be rather difficult ways forward at the moment. One means for enhancing cooperation would be to improve the exchange of information. Encouraging examples in this regard are the Nordic Lawyers’ Conference, held in August 2017 in Helsinki, and the centenary meeting of the Nordic Federation of Public Administration, organised in 2018 in Iceland. An additional area that may have some potential for furthering cooperation is soft law.

Examining the changing reception of Shakespeare in the Nordic countries between 1870 and 1940, this follow-up volume to Disseminating Shakespeare in the Nordic Countries focuses on the broad movements of national revivalism that took place around the turn of the century as Finland and Norway, and later Iceland, were gaining their independence. The first part of the book demonstrates how translations and productions of Shakespeare were key in such movements, as Shakespeare was appropriated for national and political purposes. The second part explores how the role of Shakespeare in the Nordic countries was partly transformed in the 1920s and 1930s as a new social system emerged, and then as the rise of fascism meant that European politics cast a long shadow on the Nordic countries and substantially affected the reception of Shakespeare. Contributors trace the impact of early translations of Shakespeare's works into Icelandic, the role of women in the early transmission of Shakespeare in Finland and the first Shakespeare production at the Finnish Theatre, and the productions of Shakespeare's plays at the Norwegian National Theatre between 1899 and the outbreak of the Great War. In Part Two, they examine the political overtones of the 1916 Shakespeare celebrations in Hamlet’s ‘hometown’ of Elsinore, Henrik Rytter’s translations of 23 Shakespeare plays into Norwegian to assess their role in his poetics and in Scandinavian literature, the importance of the 1937 production of Hamlet in Kronborg Castle starring Laurence Olivier, and the role of Shakespeare in general and Hamlet in particular in Swedish Nobel laureate Eyvind Johnson's early work where it became a symbol of post-war passivity and rootlessness.

The formation of parliamentarism in the nordic countries from the napoleonic wars to the first world war

The peace negotiations that followed upon the Great War were the first major ones in history which did not imply any border revisions for Sweden. Yet external changes drastically improved Sweden’s geopolitical position. The two traditionally problematic great powers, Germany and Russia, had been defeated and weakened. Finland, the Baltic States and Poland gained independence. Denmark regained the Danish-speaking part of Schleswig which settled a long-standing-problem in Scandinavian security politics. Sweden became surrounded by small states, and all Nordic countries were now free from ties to surrounding great powers.

In education, the ‘Nordic model’ refers to the similarities and shared aims of the education systems developed in the five Nordic countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway—after World War II. Traditionally, there have always been many similarities and links between the Nordic countries through their historical connections and geographical proximity. The common experience of solidarity and political oppression during World War II also created the basis for a common political orientation in the postwar period, which was also reflected in the education systems during the development of the countries’ economies and their establishment of welfare states. At the same time, this very process has been strongly supported by social-democratic governance in these countries in the 1960s and 1970s (Blossing, Imsen, &amp; Moos, 2014). The model is based on a concept of Education for All, where equity, equal opportunities and inclusion are consistently cited as the goal of schooling and orientation (Blossing et al., 2014; Telhaug, Mediås, &amp; Aasen, 2006). This corresponds to the egalitarian idea of a classless society, which is characterised by individual democratic participation, solidarity and mutual respect and appreciation for all. This idea was manifested in, for example, major reallocations of economic resources through the tax systems and free schooling for all, which arose out of the principle that parents’ lack of economic resources should not prevent children from obtaining a good quality education. The equalisation of structural inequalities and creation of equity was—and still is—the task of the education system in the Nordic countries. Worldwide, especially within the Nordic countries, the view is being shared that the education system should be fair and provide access and opportunities for further education, regardless of where someone lives, the status of the parental home, where someone comes from, what ethnic background someone has, what age or gender someone is, what skills one has or whether someone has physical disabilities (Blossing et al., 2014; Quaiser-Pohl, 2013). Some special features of the Nordic system are therefore deeply embedded in the school culture in the countries, for example, through the fact that access to free and public local schools and adapted education is statutory, which is in contrast to many other countries, even other European ones (further developed and discussed in Chap. 2). The Nordic model is widely considered a good example of educational systems that provide equal learning opportunities for all students. Achieving equity, here meaning the creation of fairness, is expressed concretely in political measures to distribute resources equally and strengthen the equality of marginalised groups by removing the barriers to seize educational opportunities, for example, when mixed-ability comprehensive schools are created or the educational system is made inclusive regarding students with special needs (UNESCO, 1994; Wiborg, 2009). Equality is roughly connoted with ‘sameness in treatment’ (Espinoza, 2007), while equity takes further in consideration also the question of how well the requirements of individual needs are met. Thus, the goal of equity is always linked to the concept of justice, provided that an equality of opportunities is created. If, however, one looks at individual educational policy decisions on the creation of educational justice in isolation, one must weigh which concept of equity or equality is present in each case. For example, it is not enough to formally grant equal rights in the education system to disadvantaged groups, but something must also be done actively to ensure that marginalised groups can use and realise this equality. The complexity of the terms becomes even greater when one considers that to achieve equality, measures can be taken that presuppose an unequal distribution of resources or unequal treatment and, therefore, are not fair e.g., when resources are bundled especially for disadvantaged groups and these are given preferential treatment (will be further developed and discussed in Chap. 2). Thus, equality and equity rely on each other and are in a field of tension comprising multiple ideas (Espinoza, 2007).

Despite the fact that the Nordic countries had very different experiences during World War II, cooperation intensified in the 1950s. The Nordic school model, with its emphasis on the child in focus, inclusion, equal opportunities for all, and an extended comprehensive and undifferentiated school system, emerged. The sorting of pupils into different tracks took place at age 15 or 16. The 1960s saw a significant expansion of the education systems, with the Swedish school model emerging as a paradigm for the other Nordic countries. With Finland’s success in the first comparative education studies, Finnish teacher education became the standard for teacher education in Iceland and Norway. Sweden follows more complex models for teacher education, while Danish teacher education is an outlier from a Nordic comparison perspective. While Finnish teacher education has shown stability, frequent changes in models of teacher education in the other Nordic countries are typical. In public discourse, crises in teacher education are a recurring theme. These crises concern criticism of the quality of applicants, what student teachers learn, and insufficient graduate production. The problems facing teacher education are varied, but where they occur, they are dire; there are no simple solutions to the challenges that currently exist.

Scandinavia has always been a hotbed for espionage, owing to its natural resources and geostrategic location surrounded by the European powers Britain, Germany and Russia. A sharp increase in intelligence activities during World War I was picked up by various media.

Icelandic museums and their position in public culture Icelandic museums are rooted in the national romantic movement of the 19th century and - as in the other Nordic countries - in the romantic search for a cultural identity. The National Museum was founded in 1863 in a period when the struggle for independence from Denmark culminated. Icelandic nationalism was again challenged in World War 2 which was also coincided with a period of an accelerated modernization.