Åland’s Demilitarisation and Neutralisation at the End of the Cold War – Parliamentary Discussions in Åland and Finland 1988–1995

in International Journal on Minority and Group Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

As a region that is simultaneously demilitarised, neutralised and autonomous, the Åland Islands represent a unique and long-established case in international law. However, this status was never independent of surrounding events. The early 1990s saw both the end of the Cold War and Finland’s accession to the European Union. This paper offers an analysis of the discussion regarding Åland’s demilitarised and neutralised status among both Finnish and Ålandic legislators during this period. It finds that Finnish policy-makers saw little need to discuss the matter. Åland’s officials continuously criticised the Finnish Defence Forces’ presence in the region as excessive and proved unwilling to let the issue rest. Against formal obstacles, they established themselves as a relevant actor, facilitated by differing approaches of political, diplomatic and military officials in Finland. Other sovereign states showed only limited interest in the discussion, making it a domestic one for the most part.

Åland’s Demilitarisation and Neutralisation at the End of the Cold War – Parliamentary Discussions in Åland and Finland 1988–1995

in International Journal on Minority and Group Rights

Sections

References

8

(Government Report)supra note 6 pp. 12–13 15.

13

(Government Report)supra note 11 pp. 10–11.

24

(Foreign Affairs Committee)supra note 21 p. 40.

27

Raunio and Wibergsupra note 23 p. 65.

33

Ferreira-Pereirasupra note 26 p. 110.

34

(Government Report)supra note 29 pp. 6 29–30 32 37–39.

42

Raunio and Wibergsupra note 23 p. 66; Jakobson supra note 28 pp. 157–158.

43

(Foreign Affairs Committee)supra note 21 p. 40; Fagerlund supra note 25 p. 228.

46

Fagerlundsupra note 25 pp. 193–196 227–228.

47

Lindbäcksupra note 44; for an analysis of Åland’s competences with regard to eu law-making and implementation see S. Silverström ‘The Competence of Autonomous Entities in the International Arena – With Special Reference to the Åland Islands in the European Union’ 15 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights (2008) pp. 259–271.

51

Rotkirchsupra note 2 p. 373.

52

Lindbäcksupra note 44.

55

Lindbäcksupra note 44.

58

Janssonsupra note 45; the impression of shifts in long-held approaches is further confirmed by mp Jansson who gradually came to modify the long-established doctrine of Åland’s representatives in the Finnish Parliament not to participate in matters of defence. In this context he described the discrepancy between not participating in the discussion of defence issues as the representative of demilitarised and neutralised Åland and the fact of also being one of Finland’s 200 Members of Parliament.

70

Lindbäcksupra note 44.

73

Janssonsupra note 45.

74

Lindbäcksupra note 44.

81

Wigellsupra note 60 p. 83.

83

Gardbergsupra note 12 pp. 20–21; this argument can also be found in (Government Report) supra note 29 p. 29.

84

Hannikainensupra note 5 pp. 631–639.

88

Janssonsupra note 45; Jansson also described a meeting in 1991 by the Constitutional Committee in which it deliberated on the proposed new Autonomy Act for Åland. He was asked by influential mp Antero Kekkonen whether or not the people of Åland had contributed to the defence of Finland during World War ii. mp Kekkonen then based his support for a new Autonomy Act for Åland on the fact that Ålanders had indeed participated as volunteers and home guards exemplifying the traditional military-based understanding of security prevalent at the time. On another note Jakobson wrote that security concerns had even been President Koivisto’s main ground for championing Finland’s eu membership more so than economic ones. See Jakobson supra note 28 p. 162.

89

Norrbacksupra note 62.

108

Spiliopoulou-Åkermarksupra note 5 p. 67.

109

Janssonsupra note 45.

110

Gardbergsupra note 12 p. 53; see also Joenniemi supra note 87 pp. 10–13.

111

Norrbacksupra note 62.

112

Hofmannsupra note 100 p. 284.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 9 9 5
Full Text Views 81 81 74
PDF Downloads 6 6 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0