Abstract
The fact that Indigenous Peoples’ organizations have “Permanent Participant” status in the Arctic Council is often touted as one of the most positive features of the organization. However, the significance of being a permanent participant is contested. How does the Arctic Council itself characterize the status of Inuit, and permanent participants in general? How does the Inuit Circumpolar Council characterize its position in the Arctic Council? How do the governments of Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the United States—countries where Inuit reside—describe the participation of Inuit? This article presents a content analysis of a selection of primary documents to illuminate the answers to these questions. The major finding is that Inuit describe their status as leaders in the Arctic Council, while states and the Arctic Council itself describes them as participants.
Highlights
Status in the Arctic Council is one of the de ning features of the institution. e Arctic Council (AC) is an international institution consisting of all states with land in the Arctic—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States; permanent participant status means that Indigenous Peoples’ organizations work in the institution with most of the same powers as states, save voting rights. e AC is the only international institution in which Indigenous Peoples have such a signi cant role. is article studies the discourse around the role of Inuit in the AC and the depiction of what the status means
How does the AC itself characterize the status of the Inuit organizations and permanent participants in general? How does the Inuit Circumpolar Council depict its position in the AC and, by extension, the position of other Indigenous Peoples? How do the governments of Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the United States describe the participation of Inuit in Arctic governance? As mentioned, this research focuses on the four states where Inuit territory lies. is research presents a discourse analysis of eighteen primary documents to illuminate the answers to these questions
How does the Arctic Council itself characterize the status of Inuit, and permanent participants in general? Official AC documents describe permanent participants fairly conservatively, as groups that participate in the institution
Summary
Literature on Arctic Council discourse focuses on general descriptions of the Arctic in media and concludes that those descriptions impact public opinion. Ey nd that early Arctic Circle Assembly events focused on “development, energy, security, research and science, challenges, cooperation and businesses,” but not necessarily Indigenous Peoples. is article seeks to add to this earlier research by explicitly studying the description of Inuit in government discourse about the Arctic Council. Documents include: 1) all of the existing up-to-date Arctic Council documents that describe its role and structure, chosen from the complete set of documents available online;25 2) all of the most recent annual reports from the Inuit Circumpolar Council that describe the role and activities of the group, available online; and 3) the most recent national Arctic strategies from Canada, Denmark, Russia, and the United States, which discuss official policies on the AC and Indigenous Peoples. Ministerial Statement Presented by Jimmy Sto s – Arc c Change
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
