Approximately five centuries of the involvement of Portugal in Antarctic regions is described. Discoveries, the sealing and whaling industries, and modern developments are discussed.

In this article, we introduce the concept of politics of comparison in tourism development, looking at how comparison contributes to shaping and making sense of tourism development in Greenland. Decision makers and operators in Greenland foresee tourism growth as new transatlantic airports are set to open by 2024. To navigate an uncertain tourism future, many look towards neighbouring Iceland, who experienced exponential growth in international tourism arrivals between 2010 and 2018. In this North Atlantic reflection, comparison also works as a tool to understand tourism, positioning Greenland as a potential destination and deliberating about the future of tourism in the region, while also bringing forth competing logics and trajectories of development. Thus, comparison serves to engage with the meaning and value of tourism, seeing it not only as a pillar of the economy but also as a force affecting landscapes and communities. We argue that the comparisons made by tourism actors work epistemologically – creating knowledge of ‘what is’ – as well as ontologically, forcefully interfering with and producing tourism realities.

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.

The Arctic region is rapidly changing as a result of climate alteration, political tensions and ambitions of the Arctic and non-Arctic states. Is the existing governance considered to be adequate for effective international security cooperation in the region? On the one hand, we look optimistic at the evolution of international relations in the areas of science and technology, conservation, search and rescue coordination, tourism, etc. On the other hand, there is a significantly increased militarisation of the Arctic region. The recent rise in military activities in the North has resulted in numerous regional deployments, patrols and other incidents in the maritime Arctic. In general, militarisation together with climate change are impacting scientific-commercial activities. Also, the absence of an adequate legal regime that may respond to climate change and interruption of civil activities by military exercises in a fast and effective way hampers international cooperation. This paper problematises various aspects of interaction between scientific-commercial activities and naval operations in the Arctic region.

The Svalbard Treaty established Norway’s full and absolute sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard. At the same time, it also established special territorial status for the archipelago, providing nationals of all signatory nations equal access to its resources. During fieldwork in Longyearbyen, conducted as part of a bottom-up exploration of place in 2018, several recurring issues came up in the analysis of interviews with residents using grounded theory methodology. Two of these issues, sometimes linked and sometimes seen as separate, were a questioning of the legitimacy of the community and a sense of geopolitical vulnerability. These emerging categories led to a series of focus groups, conducted between December 2018 and November 2019, that was designed to explore the impacts and implications of the Svalbard Treaty through the articulation of residents’ lived experiences in Longyearbyen. This paper examines the findings that emerged within an Identity of Place framing that point to an inherent conflict between the Svalbard Treaty’s special territorial status and the possibility of establishing a fully functioning local democracy in Longyearbyen.

Kuhnian’ paradigms are a commonly used method of explaining the structure of knowledge production within the social sciences; however, in some ways, they are also in opposition with Popperian’ critical thinking. The opposing approaches surmount to a comparative analytic method – Kuhn advocates undertaking science that is incommensurable, discipline-specific and ideologically and metaphysically fixed in nature; whilst Popper advocates science that is pluralistic, rebellious, interdisciplinary, and ideologically and metaphysically adaptable. This article utilises a systematic literature review of key peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and online articles from respected sources relating to Arctic scientific cooperation during and since the Cold War in order to provide a qualitative data source for comparative theoretical analysis. This article analyses key trends in Arctic environmental decision-making since the Cold War utilising a comparative critical constructivist framework based on epistemological challenges visible in the “Science Wars” between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. By applying two of the foundations of social science (critical thinking and paradigms) to Arctic International Relations and Geopolitics, this article assesses the state of Arctic science cooperation and; the potential for Arctic science cooperation to solve wicked environmental problems. The article concludes that there are power relationships within the epistemological background to environmental decision-making which impacts science cooperation in the Arctic and; current trends in Arctic decision-making further propels the Arctic along a trajectory of environmental degradation.

Despite advances in impact assessment (IA) practice in Arctic regions, persistent challenges remain. This article examines how baseline information needs and associated uncertainties are presented and understood in the regulatory context of IA. The focus is on marine-related information needs in the Nunavut IA process. The method used a document review of operational IA reports and focus groups with the Nunavut Impact Review Board – the agency responsible for IA in the territory. The results show that information challenges are largely linked to the availability, suitability and accessibility of data; while challenges to addressing information needs are related to broad capacity constraints, as well as responsibility, and cooperation among parties to the process. Similar to other settings, in Nunavut, there is a need to develop better guidance for parties regarding information uncertainties in IA and how such may be addressed. To help address information needs, there is also a need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and expectations of all parties (e.g. Inuit organisations, proponent, government and communities), as well as improving coordination and advancing collaboration, while also addressing capacity constraints.

On 25 June 2021, a historic fisheries Agreement entered into force: The Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO). Nine countries and the European Union agreed to refrain from any commercial fishing in the CAO and to jointly undertake a scientific effort to understand ecosystem dynamics, including fish populations. This was the first multilateral Agreement to take a legally binding, precautionary approach to protect an area from commercial fishing before fishing had begun. The Agreement is a textbook example of the precautionary principle as it works to take “preventive action in the face of uncertainty.” However, despite the precautionary principle’s popularity with natural resource academics, it is rare for countries to forego economic benefits and to adopt this approach in managing resources. So, what made this Agreement possible? And what can we learn from this Agreement that could provide guidance on other resource management challenges? This paper explores the unique conditions that made this Agreement possible and examines how success was achieved by the interrelationships of science, policy, legal structures, politics, stakeholder collaboration, and diplomacy. In summary, this paper concludes that a series of factors helped make this Agreement possible, including but not limited to: scientific breakthroughs coupled with science-based legal frameworks; proactive partnerships between industry, environmental non-profits, and government; willingness of international stakeholders to learn from prior mistakes; and a nation willing to be the first-mover in foregoing future economic profits within their own Exclusive Economic Zone to order to benefit ecosystems beyond their waters.