Dr. Sara Riccetti Selim,
PhD, specialized in North American Indigenous Studies

 

On 3–4 March 2026, the Arctic Circle– Polar Dialogue was held in Rome, Italy, bringing one of the leading international platforms for Arctic discussion to the Italian capital for the first time. The initiative brought together institutional representatives, diplomats, scholars, and experts — Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike — to discuss the political, climatic, scientific, and strategic challenges currently shaping the Arctic region.

The Centro Studi Italia-Canada (Italy-Canada Study Centre) participated in the Forum by organizing the panel Indigenous Sovereignty and Legal Frameworks Across the Circumpolar North: Rights, Governance, and the Future of Arctic Development, featuring Dr. Sara Olsvig, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Jessica Veldstra, Executive Director of the Aleut International Association, and Professor Federico Lenzerini, Professor of International Law at the University of Siena. The session explored the relationship between Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, Indigenous knowledge systems, public policy, and international relations, shifting attention away from the Arctic as merely a strategic geopolitical space and toward the communities that have inhabited the region for millennia and continue to safeguard its territories, knowledge systems, and forms of governance.

Arctic Policy and Cooperation

Opening the panel was Mona Fortier, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, who situated the discussion within the framework of Canada’s new Arctic Foreign Policy, adopted in December 2024 following months of consultation with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous governments and organizations, and Northern communities. Fortier emphasized that the Arctic is central to Canadian identity, national security, and sovereignty.

Mona Fortier, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada

Partnerships, International Law, and Indigenous Representation

Fortier stressed the partnership-based nature of Canadian Arctic policy, grounded in listening, knowledge-sharing, and the construction of pragmatic solutions together with Indigenous communities. In this context, she referred to mechanisms such as the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee and the Inuit Nunangat Policy, as well as the role of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, treaties, land claims agreements, self-government agreements, and respect for territorial and provincial jurisdictions.

She also noted that reconciliation is not a completed achievement but an ongoing process: Canada, in her words, “is not perfect,” but remains committed to listening, learning, and reflecting the priorities of those who live in the Arctic.

New Indigenous Voices in Canadian Foreign Policy

Particular attention was given to the newly appointed Arctic Ambassador and Senior Arctic Official, Virginia Mearns (Inuk), tasked with consulting Arctic communities and leaders, representing Canada at the Arctic Council, and facilitating dialogue with international partners. Fortier also announced the creation of an Arctic and Northern Residency Program within Global Affairs Canada, intended to strengthen Indigenous participation in the development of Canadian foreign policy.

Climate, Security, and Cooperation

Fortier recalled that while the Arctic is currently receiving unprecedented international media attention, Indigenous and Northern communities have long understood the deep interconnection between climate risks and geopolitical risks. The melting of sea ice is increasing global interest in shipping routes, natural resources, and scientific research, while maritime conditions in the Canadian Arctic are becoming increasingly unpredictable. In this context, respect for international law remains essential for global stability, economic development, scientific cooperation, and research.

Fortier concluded by establishing one of the central premises of the panel: a stable, secure, and prosperous Arctic cannot be built without strong, respectful, and long-term partnerships with the Indigenous peoples who inhabit those territories.

From this institutional framework, Dr. Sara Olsvig’s intervention shifted the focus toward the political and legal meaning of Indigenous sovereignty in the Arctic — particularly in Greenland — placing at the centre the right to self-determination of the Indigenous peoples who have inhabited the region since time immemorial.

Arctic Sovereignty and Indigenous Self-Determination: Sara Olsvig, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council

Sara Olsvig opened her participation in the Rome Polar Dialogue through the panel organized by the Italy-Canada Study Centre, one of the Forum’s inaugural sessions. Her intervention followed the pre-session Greenland and Scenarios for Arctic Security, entirely dedicated to Greenland and organized by the Guarini Institute for Public Affairs at John Cabot University.

Olsvig focused her remarks on sovereignty in the Arctic not merely as a matter concerning states and political borders, but as a profoundly political issue tied to the self-determination of the Indigenous peoples who inhabit the region.

Sara Olsvig, Chair for the Inuit Circumpolar Council

Indigenous Peoples as Central Actors in Arctic Governance

Olsvig began by emphasizing that Indigenous peoples have long been central actors in Arctic governance, diplomacy, and international cooperation. Collaboration among Inuit, Sámi, Aleut, Athabascans, Gwich’in, and Indigenous peoples from the Russian Arctic continues to transcend state borders and remains embedded in the daily life of communities connected through family networks, cultural continuity, and sovereignty across territories now divided between Russia, the United States, Canada, and Greenland.

This issue has acquired renewed importance at a moment when geopolitical tensions are drawing international attention back to Greenland and Arctic resources. Yet, as Olsvig stressed, external powers’ interest in the region is not new: Indigenous peoples have lived in the Arctic since time immemorial and have faced such pressures for centuries.

A Long History of Circumpolar Cooperation

To contextualize the present, Olsvig recalled key moments in the history of circumpolar cooperation, including the Arctic Peoples’ Conference of 1973 and the founding of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in 1977. These developments demonstrate that Indigenous peoples did not enter Arctic governance only at a later stage, but actively contributed from the outset to the creation of cooperative structures across the region.

The major difference today, compared to previous periods of Arctic tension, is that many Indigenous communities now possess their own systems of governance, self-government agreements, parliaments, and institutions — rights secured through decades of political struggle.

Cooperation and the Future of the Arctic

According to Olsvig, the current historical moment represents a delicate balance for Indigenous communities: on the one hand, the risk of losing hard-won achievements; on the other, the possibility of further strengthening Indigenous self-government and sovereignty. For this reason, Arctic leaders — Indigenous and state alike — bear a profound responsibility in shaping the future of the region.

Within this context, Olsvig identified the recent opening of the Canadian consulate in Nuuk as a significant sign of Canada’s commitment to strengthening dialogue with Greenland and promoting Arctic cooperation grounded in direct relationships among communities, institutions, and territories.

In conclusion, Olsvig reaffirmed that no meaningful discussion of Arctic sovereignty and governance can ignore the Indigenous peoples who have inhabited these territories since time immemorial. At a moment of profound geopolitical and international transformation, the future of the Arctic must therefore rest upon full recognition of Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination — a principle that Indigenous communities will continue to defend.

This reflection on Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination connected directly to Jessica Veldstra’s intervention, which brought the discussion onto the concrete terrain of Aleut history, resilience, and stewardship, illustrating how these principles take shape in the everyday life of Arctic communities.

Aleut Resilience and Indigenous Stewardship in the Arctic: Jessica Veldstra, Executive Director of the Aleut International Association

Jessica Veldstra, Executive Director of the Aleut International Association, opened her intervention by introducing the audience to the ancestral homeland of the Aleut people: a vast territory stretching nearly 1,900 kilometres between Alaska and the Commander Islands, accessible only by sea or air and inhabited since time immemorial by numerous communities.

Mappa of the Aleut territories, Alaska. Image courtesy of Jessica Veldstra.

The Executive Director’s intervention retraced a history marked both by a profound sense of belonging and by severe historical ruptures. Colonial expansion — particularly the Russian-American fur trade — caused the forced displacement of entire communities, the separation of families, and the disruption of traditional ways of life. Yet despite displacement and the creation of state borders, Aleut communities continue to adapt, rebuild relationships, and maintain their connection to their ancestral lands and waters. “We are resilient peoples,” Veldstra stated.

Negotiating Survival in Contemporary Alaska

Following the purchase of Alaska by the United States, Veldstra explained, Aleut tribes entered a long process of negotiation with the federal government — a process that continues today — concerning tribal rights, territorial management, and the ability to continue living according to traditional ways.

Today, the thirteen sovereign Aleut tribes organize themselves in different ways: some tribal councils are elected, others appointed. Each community defines its own governance structure according to its needs and traditions. At the same time, tribes also collaborate through tribal consortia, delegating authority in order to collectively negotiate shared rights and benefits.

The Aleut International Association emerged precisely from this political and cultural context. Its creation, Veldstra emphasized, was closely connected to the development of the Arctic Council and to broader Indigenous efforts to secure representation within Arctic governance. Veldstra expressed particular gratitude to organizations such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Saami Council, and the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, whose efforts contributed to ensuring Indigenous participation within the Arctic Council.

The creation of the Aleut International Association also carried a strong community significance. When Aleut leaders began organizing internationally, they confirmed the continued presence of communities still living in the Commander Islands after decades of separation. Rebuilding those relationships became a powerful moment of cultural reconnection and, for more than twenty-five years, Aleut communities across borders have worked to cultivate relationships, exchange knowledge, share traditions, and reunite families separated by historical and geopolitical events. “This reconnection,” Veldstra emphasized, “has been central to the history of our organization’s creation.”

Jessica Veldstra, Executive Director of the Aleut International Association

“The Tide Is Out, the Table Is Set”

One of the central themes of Veldstra’s intervention was the inseparable connection between Indigenous rights, environmental protection, and survival. Among the main legal frameworks affecting the ability of Aleut peoples in Alaska to maintain their traditional practices, Veldstra mentioned the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), negotiated between Alaska Native peoples and the United States government regarding territorial rights.

The outcome, she acknowledged, was complex. Nevertheless, ANCSA allowed Indigenous communities to retain forms of stewardship over parts of their traditional lands and to continue managing them according to their own practices and knowledge systems. At the same time, approximately two-thirds of Alaska remains under federal jurisdiction, meaning that Indigenous stewardship over lands and waters requires constant negotiation and collaboration with federal authorities.

Veldstra also referred to Alaska’s conservation system, which protects Indigenous subsistence rights and recognizes subsistence harvesting as a priority over other forms of resource use or exploitation.

For Aleut communities, these protections are not abstract questions but concrete conditions for survival. As Veldstra explained: “In our region, there is a saying: The tide is out, the table is set.” Food comes from the ocean, and in remote communities where groceries may cost up to four times more than on the mainland, access to local food resources is essential. Protecting harvesting rights therefore also means protecting clean waters, healthy ecosystems, and the continuity of Indigenous life itself.

Co-management and Indigenous Stewardship

Veldstra further emphasized co-management as a fundamental model of Arctic governance. Through bodies such as the Aleut Marine Mammal Commission, Aleut tribes collaborate with federal and state authorities to protect species such as Steller sea lions, harbour seals, northern fur seals, and the broader marine ecosystem.

These agreements reflect a wider model of Arctic governance in which Indigenous knowledge and stewardship are not regarded merely symbolically, but as essential components of sustainable territorial management.

Veldstra repeatedly stressed how climate change is already transforming life in Alaska and across the Arctic. Coastal erosion, increasingly violent storms, and growing environmental instability are forcing some Northern communities toward evacuation. For Indigenous peoples, this displacement is not only geographical, but also cultural and existential. Veldstra described the forced relocation from small rural communities to urban centres as “devastating,” emphasizing that many Alaskan communities are now exposed, at varying levels, to climate risk.

King Cove and the Twelve-Mile Road

One of the most significant examples shared by Veldstra concerned the community of King Cove, which has only a small airstrip and is becoming increasingly isolated because of violent storms linked to climate change. During medical emergencies, this situation can become life-threatening.

Only twelve miles away lies Cold Bay, equipped with an airport capable of operating in all weather conditions. However, federally managed lands separate the two communities.

For decades, Aleut communities have fought for permission to build a twelve-mile road connecting the two towns — a corridor that could drastically improve emergency evacuations and save lives. After years of negotiations, an agreement with the U.S. government finally allowed for a land exchange to move the project forward. Although obstacles related to permits and funding remain, Veldstra described the agreement as a significant victory, emphasizing that Aleut communities place immense value both on environmental conservation and on human life: “This road is essential,” she stated, “because it could save lives” in an increasingly unstable environment.

A Shared North Beyond Political Borders

Despite geopolitical tensions and environmental uncertainty, Veldstra concluded her intervention with a message of collaboration and shared responsibility. For Aleut peoples, the Arctic Council remains an essential space because it enables direct cooperation among Indigenous peoples across state borders.

Although Alaska does not directly border Canada, many members of the Aleut community view Alaska and Canada as connected parts of a broader Northern homeland. “In many ways,” Veldstra declared, “we think of Canada as the homeland of our sisters and brothers in North America.”

Through collaboration, Indigenous peoples of the Arctic are able to share knowledge, practices, stories, and experiences. At a time when the Arctic is undergoing extremely rapid transformations and attracting growing global attention, these relationships, Veldstra stressed, are more important than ever.

For Aleut peoples, protecting the Arctic does not simply mean addressing geopolitical or environmental issues: it means protecting communities, cultures, languages, relationships, and ways of life that have existed for thousands of years — and ensuring that they can continue to exist in the future.

From this concrete and community-based perspective, Professor Federico Lenzerini’s intervention provided the legal framework through which many of the issues raised by Veldstra could be understood: if protecting the Arctic means protecting communities, languages, territories, and ways of life, then it becomes necessary to ask what space international law recognizes for Indigenous sovereignty and the self-determination of the peoples who have inhabited those territories since time immemorial.

Indigenous Sovereignty and International Law: Professor Federico Lenzerini’s Intervention

Professor Federico Lenzerini addressed the issue of Indigenous sovereignty from a legal perspective, examining the relationship between the state, international law, and the self-determination of Indigenous peoples.

Prof. Federico Lenzerini, Professor of International law, University of Siena

From Westphalian Sovereignty to Indigenous Sovereignty

Lenzerini opened his intervention by recalling the traditional conception of sovereignty in international law: the Westphalian model, developed following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. According to this framework, sovereignty coincides with supreme authority exercised over a territory and held exclusively by the state.

Within this classical vision, sovereignty appears indivisible and absolute: a territory may have only one sovereign authority. Lenzerini linked this understanding to the so-called chunk theory of sovereignty, a “monolithic” conception of sovereignty based on the idea that states possess all sovereign attributes fully and indivisibly.

However, according to the professor, this conception now appears increasingly rigid and insufficient to describe the complexity of contemporary international law. State sovereignty, in fact, is never entirely absolute, also because of the international obligations states are required to respect.

Contrasting with this approach is the so-called basket theory of sovereignty, according to which different actors may hold different attributes of sovereignty over the same territory. It is precisely within this theoretical framework that the concept of Indigenous sovereignty emerges.

Indigenous Sovereignty as “Inherent Sovereignty”

Indigenous sovereignty, Lenzerini explained, derives from the fact that Indigenous peoples originally possessed full sovereignty over their ancestral territories, which was later limited or taken away by modern states.

The professor referred in particular to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the famous case Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823), in which Native tribes were defined as “domestic dependent nations.” Although the Court recognized that Indigenous peoples originally possessed full sovereignty over their territories, it argued that many attributes of that sovereignty had been absorbed by the United States through the incorporation of tribes into the federal state.

Lenzerini recalled that this position was reaffirmed in United States v. Lara (2004), in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed Congress’s power to limit or revoke elements of Indigenous sovereignty. A position the professor openly criticized, arguing that it ignores obligations arising from international law and the recognition of the collective rights of Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous sovereignty, he explained, is an “inherent” sovereignty: it historically precedes the formation of modern states and exists parallel to state sovereignty, to the point of limiting certain state prerogatives.

The Rights that Define Indigenous Sovereignty

Lenzerini then identified some of the principal rights that give concrete substance to Indigenous sovereignty, including:

• the right to self-determination, self-government, and autonomy;
• rights to traditional lands and resources;
• the right to maintain identity, cultural integrity, and intergenerational continuity;
• the right to govern internal affairs according to customary law;
• the right to effective participation in decision-making processes affecting Indigenous peoples.

These rights, he emphasized, are recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and, according to part of legal scholarship, also in customary international law.

According to Lenzerini, Indigenous sovereignty is not merely a theoretical category, but a legal reality that may be asserted against states before domestic courts and, in some cases, before international bodies.

Canada as an Advanced Model of Recognition

A central part of the intervention focused on Canada, which Lenzerini described as one of the countries most advanced in recognizing Indigenous sovereignty.

The professor recalled that the Constitution Act of 1982 constitutionally recognized Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the notion of Aboriginal title. The nature of these rights was later clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Sparrow (1990), which established that Aboriginal rights may only be limited by the government under very specific conditions and always with full respect for the fundamental rights of Indigenous communities.

Furthermore, Lenzerini noted that in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that Aboriginal title includes not only the traditional relationship to the land, but also the “modern uses” of territories, including mineral rights and the exploitation of natural resources.

According to Lenzerini, this constitutes one of the most significant recognitions of Indigenous sovereignty within a contemporary state legal system, because it implies the possibility for Indigenous peoples to exercise control over economic activities that may conflict with governmental interests.

UNDRIP, Self-Government, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent

Finally, the professor emphasized the importance of Canada’s 2021 decision to incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into domestic legislation.

This step, he observed, gives domestic legal value to the principles contained in the Declaration, including the rights to self-determination, autonomy, and cultural protection.

Lenzerini further highlighted that the Canadian government explicitly recognizes that relationships with Indigenous peoples must be founded upon the right to self-determination and inherent self-government, considered an integral part of the evolution of Canadian cooperative federalism and configured as a “distinct order of government.”

Finally, the professor addressed one of the most controversial issues in contemporary international law: the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). According to Lenzerini, Canada represents one of the few states that has accepted, at least in part, the idea that the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous communities may concretely translate into the possibility of halting certain economic development and resource extraction projects.

For this reason, he concluded, Canada today occupies a particularly advanced position within the international landscape of the protection of Indigenous rights and sovereignty.

Lenzerini’s reflections on free, prior and informed consent and on the possibility for Indigenous communities to concretely influence economic and development projects directly introduced the themes that emerged in the final debate. The Q&A session brought these issues onto a practical terrain: who decides on the use of resources? How can development, environmental protection, and self-determination be reconciled? And what role do the media play in narrating these tensions?

Resource Extraction, Media Representation, and Self-Determination: Themes Emerging from the Final Debate

The panel’s question-and-answer session explored some of the most complex themes that emerged throughout the Forum: the relationship between extractive development and Indigenous self-determination, media representation of the Arctic, and the connection between sovereignty, natural resources, and international law.

Mining, Development, and Self-Determination

A journalist in the audience opened the discussion by asking whether divisions exist within Arctic Indigenous communities regarding the acceptance of extractive industries and mining activities.

In response, Jessica Veldstra emphasized that decisions regarding extractive development in Alaska depend on the individual tribes and the territories involved. Indigenous communities, she explained, do not automatically oppose economic development, but believe it is essential that every project be evaluated together with the affected populations and that it not produce negative consequences for communities and territories. The central issue, according to Veldstra, is the direct involvement of tribes in decision-making processes.

Sara Olsvig highlighted that, in Greenland, debates surrounding extractive industries are closely connected to self-government and self-determination. Kalaallit Nunaat, she explained, has developed over the years a shared political strategy regarding the mining sector, built through Greenlandic democratic institutions and supported by broad political consensus. Decisions regarding what to extract, what not to extract, and how to regulate mining activities are made within Parliament.

Olsvig further stressed that Greenland’s Inuit population does not define itself as “anti-mining,” but rather seeks to make responsible and informed choices. Every extractive project, she observed, inevitably carries environmental risks and pollution, and there is no fully sustainable form of mining because extracted resources cannot be regenerated. Precisely for this reason, self-government also implies the responsibility of making difficult decisions concerning one’s own model of development.

Media, Greenland, and Narratives of Security

A second central theme of the debate concerned media representation of the Arctic and Indigenous communities. Rozina Breen, Director of Editorial at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, asked whether international media could do more to amplify Indigenous voices and tell Arctic stories from the perspective of local communities.

Sara Olsvig acknowledged some positive developments in international coverage of Greenland between 2025 and 2026. According to Olsvig, international media now appear more aware that Greenland is composed predominantly of an Indigenous Inuit population endowed with self-government and the right to self-determination.

However, she also observed that strongly external and geopolitical narratives persist, particularly in Danish media, where discussions about relations between Greenland and the United States are often framed as “negotiations over Greenland’s future,” without fully recognizing the political and decision-making role of the Inuit people themselves.

Olsvig nevertheless expressed appreciation for the many journalists present in Nuuk and other Greenlandic cities during the first months of 2026, emphasizing that many reporters had begun asking deeper questions and less frequently requesting basic explanations about Inuit identity and self-government.

Another central aspect of her response concerned the very concept of “security.” According to Olsvig, mainstream media today tend to focus primarily on geopolitical and military tensions, while climate change continues to represent the principal security threat for many Arctic communities. As Jessica Veldstra had already highlighted, the effects of the climate crisis — coastal erosion, storms, environmental instability, and the risk of evacuations — are already a concrete reality across Arctic territories.

UNDRIP, Natural Resources, and Territorial Rights

The final part of the debate focused on the relationship between international law, Indigenous sovereignty, and control over natural resources. The question addressed to Professor Federico Lenzerini concerned how it is possible to explain the fact that states which have adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) continue to come into conflict with Indigenous claims over natural resources, citing the case of Nunavut and fisheries resources in Northern Canada.

Lenzerini reiterated that the right to territories and resources — including marine resources — constitutes a fundamental right of Indigenous peoples and is closely tied to their cultural identity, integrity, and collective survival. According to the professor, UNDRIP clearly recognizes these rights and, in principle, its incorporation into Canadian domestic law also implies recognition of Indigenous sovereignty over the resources located within traditional territories.

However, Lenzerini emphasized that the full practical realization of these rights often requires lengthy political and legal processes. Competing interests may exist between governments, Indigenous communities, and other social groups, making mediation between different rights necessary.

While acknowledging this complexity, Lenzerini argued that, in most cases, the rights of Indigenous communities should prevail over the general economic interests of the state, since these rights concern not merely economic resources, but also cultural continuity, collective identity, and the very survival of Indigenous communities.

Sara Olsvig added and reaffirmed that UNDRIP represents only a minimum standard and that states should do more than what is required by the Declaration.

According to Olsvig, the fundamental right upon which all other rights depend is the right to self-determination. For this reason, Greenland progressively assumed direct control over its natural resources beginning with the introduction of home rule in 1979 and later through self-government. The management of fisheries and mineral resources was among the first legislative areas transferred to Greenlandic institutions.

Olsvig also recalled that the implementation of Indigenous rights varies significantly from one state to another and expressed solidarity with Inuit communities in Nunavut, Alaska, and other Arctic territories that continue to demand greater control over marine and fisheries resources located within their ancestral territories.

Conclusion

Overall, the three interventions offered an image of the Arctic profoundly different from the purely geopolitical one that often dominates international debate: not simply a strategic space contested between states and resources, but a territory inhabited, governed, and envisioned by the Indigenous peoples who have lived there for millennia.

Although approaching the issue from different perspectives, Sara Olsvig, Jessica Veldstra, and Federico Lenzerini constructed a deeply interconnected discussion linking politics, community experience, and international law.

Parliamentary Secretary Mona Fortier introduced the panel by providing the institutional framework, emphasizing that Canada’s new Arctic Foreign Policy recognizes that security, governance, and cooperation in the Arctic can no longer be conceived without the direct involvement of Indigenous populations.

Building upon this framework, Sara Olsvig shifted the discussion toward self-determination, showing how Arctic peoples are not merely stakeholders, but original political subjects of the region and historical protagonists of circumpolar governance. Jessica Veldstra then translated these principles into the concrete reality of Aleut communities, where sovereignty means the protection of resources, cultural continuity, climate resilience, and the very possibility of survival.

Federico Lenzerini’s intervention ultimately provided the legal framework capable of connecting these dimensions, showing how concepts such as self-determination, self-government, and free, prior and informed consent are now receiving growing recognition within international law as well.

The connections between the interventions emerged particularly clearly during the final debate, where audience questions brought the categories discussed during the panel onto an applied and practical level. Questions surrounding resource extraction, community consent, media representation, and territorial control demonstrated that Indigenous sovereignty cannot be reduced to an abstract principle, but must instead be understood as a political, legal, and material practice.

In this sense, the concluding discussion highlighted the theoretical issue running throughout the entire session: the relationship between state authority, Indigenous self-determination, and resource governance in an Arctic increasingly exposed to climatic, economic, and geopolitical pressures. The question is therefore not simply whether Indigenous peoples should be consulted, but to what extent their role shapes decision-making processes concerning territories, economies, and ways of life.

The panel thus presented an image of Arctic governance in transformation, in which Indigenous participation no longer constitutes a merely consultative or accessory element, but rather a substantive criterion for redefining the relationship between security, economic development, environmental protection, and decision-making authority across Arctic territories.

 

---

 

Don’t miss upcoming events
 

subscribe to the newsletter