Contemporary dimensions of a conflict over the political powers of Alaska Natives and their relationship to the larger society were set by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. This granted land and money to Alaska Natives, established corporations to use these assets, and ensured that the land and the corporations would remain under Native control until at least 1991. Under 1987 amendments to ANCSA, Congress extended these special protections indefinitely. Leaders of the tribal government movement in Alaska tried unsuccessfully to use the amendments to gain increased political power and federal recognition of Native tribes and tribal governments. They were opposed by federal authorities, Alaska's US senators, the State of Alaska, non-Native political interest groups, and Native leaders of the ANCSA corporations. Although stalled in this instance, the drive toward tribal government, or ‘sovereignty’, in Alaska remains a viable political movement. It is part of a continuing evolution of Native politics which in its modern form began with land claims and now includes a much broader concern for political claims of sovereignty, or inherent self-governing powers. In pursuing this course, however, tribal leaders will need to focus more on specific requirements for Native security and welfare than on general claims of sovereignty, and avoid direct confrontations with powerful opponents.

Dominant geopolitical narratives on the Arctic argue that the region is either edging towards conflict or international law is respected and peace is maintained through cooperation to address shared concerns. While both of these narratives are present in the Arctic states’ strategies, most of them tend to support collaborative efforts. Science diplomacy (SD) is a useful mechanism in this regard as it helps states overcome potential disagreements and can stimulate cooperation in other areas. Given the growing concerns about global risks, SD is more important now than ever before. In our study, we identify and focus on three indicators for potential SD in the Arctic strategies: i) scientific infrastructure; ii) membership in intergovernmental/interparliamentary and scientific/education organisations and networks and iii) specific areas of scientific cooperation. Considering the intensive scientific activity in the region, it is not surprising that the strategies discuss different forms of research and scientific cooperation, although none explicitly use the term “science diplomacy”. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals the Arctic states do apply the SD concept in their strategies and use three types of diplomacy – science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy or diplomacy for science – in the three indicators.

In this article, we explore tourism development as an ongoing becoming-with and in the world. We draw on Haraway’s concept of worlding to describe the coming together of tourism not as a solitary or industry-related endeavour, but as entangled. We introduce the analytical concepts of frictions, companions and string figures to exemplify and discuss what this looks like when stepping closer to the tinkering with tourism. The article illustrates and discusses ways to re-conceptualise tourism development not as a simple solution to local problem, but as world-making in tension. We abstain from identifying “good” tourism and claims of how to pursue ways to “fix” tourism, instead tending to how tourism actors imagine and tinker with and around tourism towards more livable futures in a turbulent terrain.

This paper examines the production of Arctic governance expertise, understood here as the specialised knowledge through which international cooperation is regulated in the region. Instead of presuming that such expertise is created primarily in the capitals of Arctic states, I ask a more open-ended question: where specifically does that process take place? I argue that Arctic governance expertise increasingly operates in a transnational and networked fashion: an array of think tanks, foundations and events like conferences are as important as the obvious places like foreign ministries and universities. It is a quasi-diplomatic social field characterised by blurry boundaries between different states, professions and institutional settings: between government and academia, legal and political fields, public and private sectors. The paper foregrounds that field of expertise as an object of study.

As Ngāi Tahu (southern Maori), we take issue with widespread reference in scholarly publication to Polynesian voyagers reaching the Antarctic, an idea that originated in the translation of Rarotongan traditions in the nineteenth century. Analysis of those indicates that they contain no plausible reference to Antarctic seafaring. Southern Māori interests have extended into the Subantarctic Islands for 800 years but there is no reference to Antarctica in our historical traditions. Our archaeology and history document a southern boundary to Māori occupation at Port Ross (Auckland Islands), despite habitable islands existing further south. We think it is very unlikely that Māori or other Polynesian voyaging reached the Antarctic.

Amchitka Island, Alaska, is a historical underground nuclear test site. Three underground tests were conducted there by the United States Atomic Energy Commission, now US Department of Energy (USDOE), between 1965 and 1971. These were Long Shot, an 80 kiloton detonation; Milrow, a 1 megaton detonation; and Cannikin, a 5 megaton detonation. Subsequent to these tests, several scientific assessments have been conducted regarding the impacts of the tests on the terrestrial and marine environments surrounding the island. However, many citizens and groups still voice concerns over the potential for detrimental effects on human and ecological health. In its responsibility for the long term protection of human and ecological health consequent to its nuclear programme, USDOE has recently prepared a plan for the long term surveillance and monitoring of the site. The purpose of this paper is to summarise the history of the island, specifically with regards to its use as a nuclear test site, to summarise the results of investigative activities following testing, to summarise USDOE's plan for surveillance and monitoring, and to offer the authors' viewpoints on the long term stewardship of the island. The authors deemed the stewardship plan to be essentially protective of human and ecological health; however, they recommend a stronger commitment to site oversight and review, as well as to future research, for addressing uncertainties remaining at the island.

This article examines the content and ramifications of an Australian Parliamentary Committee's Report into the application of Australian law in the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). The Report's main findings suggest that Australian law should be more vigorously applied in Antarctica, and that current practices with regard to the operation and enforcement of Australian law are perceived as damaging to Australian sovereignty. This is particularly the case in the context of the virtual non-application of law to all foreign nationals within the AAT, to an extent far beyond the categories of persons exempted by Article VIII of the Antarctic Treaty. The article also discusses the possible ramifications and difficulties of giving effect to the Report's findings. Particular stress is placed upon the impact of asserting a 200-nautical-mile fishing or exclusive economic zone in the waters off the AAT, as well as the logistic difficulties that may become apparent if Australian sovereignty is more actively asserted. In this context, brief consideration is given to the Report's recommendations relating to the Antarctic environment and tourism within the AAT.

The small population of Weddell seals at Larsen Harbour, South Georgia, is isolated from the rest of the species and is unique because nearly all pups are born on land rather than on sea-ice. Observations of seals in Larsen Harbour during the breeding season are summarised. These have been infrequent until cruise ships started to visit. With often only a single observation in a year, accurate estimates of pup production are impossible but it appears that the population has decreased over the last three decades.

Scientific cooperation in the Arctic has gained momentum during the last two years. The changing attitude of the Soviet Union, the most advanced Arctic state in this respect, has played a crucial role in this evolution. This article, which focusses on non-Soviet research efforts in Soviet Arctic waters, concludes that the Soviet Union has lately given a clear signal by allowing foreigners, after many years of repeated refusal, to conduct marine scientific research close to its own coasts. In doing so the Soviets have further clarified the legal status of their northern waters.

Few aspects of Canada's Arctic sovereignty claims have been more misunderstood than the sector theory, which many writers believe originated with and was put forward on Canada's behalf (whether officially or unofficially) by explorer Joseph Elzéar Bernier. However, several Canadian government officials in the 1920s were both shrewd and accurate in their assessment of Bernier's pretensions. This note focuses on the views of civil servant Oswald Sterling Finnie, as recorded in previously unexamined government documents. In the years following Bernier's retirement from government service in 1925, the explorer embarked on a campaign to win the place in history he felt he deserved, only to be thwarted by Finnie and his colleagues. The note also clarifies the differences between Bernier's 1907 and 1909 sector claims and the official sector claim made in 1925.

Over the last decade claims that an Arctic ‘cold rush’ is taking place have intensified. Proponents of the argument contend that the unprecedented effects of climate change plus strong global demand for the region's natural resources are creating the conditions for a future economic boom. In both of these respects, Greenland merits particular attention. Some recent predictions suggest great riches accruing to Greenland, on account of its abundance of oil, gas and mineral deposits; as a consequence, some further argue, Greenlandic independence from Denmark is assured. In response, this article contests these arguments. For now, the natural and mineral resource sector in Greenland is tiny, and thus it is still much too soon to know whether it will even deliver the dazzling economic outcome forecast – let alone whether or not this outcome will benefit Greenland. In addition, the question of Greenlandic independence does not simply boil down to economics, but also raises various social, political, legal and strategic issues which are not easily resolvable. Consequently, Greenland's independence from Denmark is not simply a matter of time, but remains very much an open question.

The following short account of this little-known voyage is mainly based on some letters from Messrs Enderby to the Admiralty, which are now in the Public Record Office (IN letters to Secretary, 1/4308).

Immediately on Biscoe's return from his Antarctic circumnavigation (January 1833) his employers, Messrs Enderby Bros., planned a voyage which should follow up his discoveries. On the previous voyage, however, the cutter Lively, Biscoe's consort, had been wrecked at the Falklands, and while the loss was partly covered by insurance it had been sufficiently heavy for her owners to look round for financial assistance in the new enterprise.