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.

This article explores the spatial dimensions of Athens' carnival and their change in the course of a century. It is based on two polarities: first, that of the old city and the new city, which was related to the contrast between traditional and modern culture in the celebration of carnival. Both the old city and traditional culture were increasingly undervalued and denounced until the inter-war years, when nostalgia for old places and practices developed. The second major contrast is that between the centre of Athens and its periphery. There was a strong tendency towards the concentration of carnival events and crowds in the centre of Athens until the 1900s. This development is correlated with the reinforcement of the middle class and its cultural hegemony. A new autonomy of the neighbourhoods of the popular classes in the inter-war period did not result in the revival of popular carnival culture.

With the rise of originalism as an interpretive strategy, history has come to play an increasingly prominent role in the reasoning and methodology of the United States Supreme Court. That development has, by necessity, also shaped the approach to constitutional interpretation taken by other parties, including the large and growing number of groups who file amicus curiae briefs. When the amici in question are religious entities, this article suggests, this “historical turn” at times takes the shape of narrating aspects of a tradition’s sacred history for the benefit of both the Court and other, lay audiences. This article examines three recent amicus briefs by one of the most consistent and prolific religious amici, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Across these briefs, this author traces the construction and deployment of history—both Catholic and American—as a middle term for negotiating the relationship between the US Constitution and its interpretation, on the one hand, and the interests and priorities of the religious tradition, on the other.