Citizenship Studies

ISSN: 1362-1025 (Print) 1469-3593 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ccst20

Borders, citizenship and change: the case of the

Sami people, 1751–2008

Patrik Lantto

To cite this article: Patrik Lantto (2010) Borders, citizenship and change: the case of the Sami
people, 1751–2008, Citizenship Studies, 14:5, 543-556, DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2010.506709

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2010.506709

Published online: 27 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6068

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccst20
Citizenship Studies
Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2010, 543–556

Borders, citizenship and change: the case of the Sami people,

1751 – 2008
Patrik Lantto*

Centre for Sami Research, Umea University, Umea, Sweden

(Received 18 March 2009; final version received 26 July 2009)

The Sami, an indigenous people in north-western Europe, today faces the challenge of
having their territory, Sápmi, partitioned among four nation states; Norway, Sweden,
Finland and Russia. Whereas borders and citizenship are generally used to defend
cultures, interests and territories, separating those who belong from those who do not, this
perspective does not include how a non-dominant indigenous people such as the Sami is
affected by the partitioning of their territory. Initially, when the first borders were
established, the states showed respect and consideration for the Sami and their rights, but
during the following centuries, more and more restrictions were being placed on the trans-
border movement of the Sami people. In this process, the Sami also had to become citizens
in one of the states, and even though the process of changing citizenship remained
relatively uncomplicated up until the early twentieth century, the partitioning of the Sami
into separate national arenas caused divisions within the people. This article focuses on
how the establishment of state borders partitioning Sápmi and the enforced citizenship in
the states affected the Sami, and how they acted in response to this development.
Keywords: Sami people; citizenship; political borders

Introduction
State borders are not natural boundaries in the landscape in the same way as rivers, lakes and
mountains can be; sometimes they follow natural barriers, but as often as not they do not.
They are man-made political structures established to separate territories, and in the process
partitioning populations. In a parallel political process, the people living on each side of these
borders have been made citizens in different states. As Paasi (2003, p. 464) writes, borders
‘give expression to power relations since they inevitably order and shape the social relations
of the peoples affected by them’. Describing borders as processes, Anderson (1996, pp. 2–3)
argues that they have several functions; they are instruments of state policy and state control,
markers of identity, as well as manifestations of discourse in, for example, law and politics.
This state perspective does not cover how non-dominant peoples are affected by borders, and
even less so indigenous peoples. Minorities living in regions partitioned by state borders face
the challenge to find their voice and space in the political arenas of the majority in different
states, while at the same time trying to maintain a cultural unity across dividing borders. This
is a challenge faced by the Sami, or Lapps as they were historically named,1 an indigenous
people in north-western Europe with an estimated population of 70,000–80,000, living in a

*Email: patrik.lantto@cesam.umu.se

ISSN 1362-1025 print/ISSN 1469-3593 online

q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2010.506709
http://www.informaworld.com
544 P. Lantto

territory that today is partitioned among four nation states; Norway, Sweden, Finland and
Russia. The area has been shaped, and its borders determined by wars and conflicts, the latest
World War II, and subsequent negotiations as well as peaceful resolutions. Today, there are
different, geographically partially overlapping names for this northern region; the North
Calotte, the Barents Region, but also Sápmi, the name given and increasingly being used by
the Sami themselves, the original inhabitants.
While border regions are generally considered peripheries, at least economically, from the
perspective of the states (Paasi 1999, p. 670), McManus (2008, p. 41) argues that nations ‘are
made and unmade at their borders’. It is here that the definition of what is separate, unique and
should be defended is made. But from the perspective of the Sami, the borders cut through the
core of the Sami areas, creating divisions within the people. The situation is complicated even
further, since there is not one Sami culture with one language, but several, and many of them
have been separated by state borders into two or in some cases even three parts. Like
McManus (2005, p. xvi), I regard borders as a social construction, and as such I want to
examine how they were established and how this has affected the people. And more
specifically, how does an indigenous people react when nation states divide their territory,
how is the internal cohesion of the group affected and what happens to their traditional way of
life in such a process? This article aims to contribute to the field of studies focusing on
indigenous peoples, borders and citizenship (e.g. Chesterman and Galligan 1997, Peterson
and Sanders 1998, Cairns 2000, Citizenship studies 2003), by examining the case of the Sami
people.
Anderson (1996, p. 1) argues that the location and purposes of borders have an impact on
the people separated by them. They are used to defend cultures and rights, interests and
territory, to separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ in a geographical manifestation of a mental image.
But the Sami experienced this development differently. It was not their borders, not their
frontiers, but from their perspective an artificial socio-spatial organization that divided areas
traditionally used by different Sami groups. This article will focus on how the establishment
of state borders partitioning the Sami areas and the enforced citizenship in the states affected
the Sami, and how they have acted in response to this development. It will also examine the
interrelationship between indigenous rights and citizenship rights in the state policies; how
the states regarded Sami rights in these processes and how they utilized citizenship in their
policies. Citizenship is studied through the process of the partitioning of the Sami areas, and
will not focus on how and when the Sami were given the same rights and obligations as other
citizens in the states, but on how citizenship has been regarded and used by the Sami and the
states. I will give examples of how some Sami groups used the new borders to gain economic
advantages, while others were affected negatively. The boundaries that will be studied here
are the political borders, and not others located in a broader social context (Newman and
Paasi 1998, pp. 194 – 195, Paasi 2005, p. 669), such as, for example, official definitions –
including some while excluding others from a Sami context – which also have had a great
impact on the Sami people (Mörkenstam 1999).
Four different periods will be examined in this article. During the first three, 1751–1809,
1826–1889 and 1919–1944, state borders in the Sami areas were being established and/or
changed. These borders have since been stable, but the situation for the Sami has continued to
develop, which will be the focus for the fourth period, 1945 to the present.

Respecting Sami rights, 1751 – 1809

Contacts between the Sami and the peoples who would form the Nordic and Russian states
go far back in history; initially, these contacts consisted mainly of trade, but soon the
 Citizenship Studies 545

emerging states started to tax the Sami. Historically, the borders in the northern parts of
the Nordic region were shifting and not very well defined. The three states then existing in
the area, Denmark –Norway, Sweden –Finland and Russia, all competed to conquer and
control as large a part of the territory as possible. Even though the Sami, who were few and
lived in a large geographical area, had no significant military role to play in this struggle, the
taxation of the, at the time, predominantly Sami population of the area was a central
argument for domination of the territory, and they were thus of importance to the states. The
ruler who could claim authority over the Sami could also claim control over the territory
they used. Through wars and negotiations, control over the coastal areas had mostly been
settled by the seventeenth century, but large parts of the interior remained common areas.
The overlapping state interests in these areas meant that the Sami had to pay taxes to two or
sometimes all three states. This situation continued up until the eighteenth century, when a
process began to divide the common areas through the establishment of more firm borders
between the states (Hansen 2005). This development can be seen as a part of what Paasi
(1996, p. 80) calls an ‘institutionalization’ of the nation, where defined borders form an
important part of the nation-building process.
In 1751, after lengthy negotiations, the border between Norway and Sweden – Finland
was finally agreed upon. This was a peaceful resolution of border issues after centuries of
conflicts between Denmark –Norway and Sweden – Finland. The goal was not only to
partition the previously common areas, but also to sever the community of the population in
the border region. The population in the northern area partitioned by the new border was
predominantly Sami, and it therefore had the potential to become a barrier separating Sami
groups, hindering their traditional resource use. This was a threat that the states were aware
of and wanted to avoid. In an addendum to the border treaty, the so-called Lapp Codicil, the
states confirmed traditional Sami rights to use lands on both sides of the border in an effort to
preserve ‘the Lappish nation’ (Pedersen 2006, p. 90). It was thus not a question of granting
new rights to the Sami, but of respecting rights existing since time immemorial. Most of the
Codicil deals with reindeer herding, which was the most common form of trans-border
activities among the Sami, but Pedersen (2006) argues that it is clear from the
implementation that the Codicil also covered, for example, trade, fishing and hunting. Since
the goal was to protect the material culture of the Sami, their use of natural resources, it
would not have been possible to focus only on reindeer herding. The Codicil also
guaranteed the Sami neutrality if a conflict should arise between the two states and their
trans-border activities would continue unhindered in such an event.
One change the Sami did experience was that they now had to become citizens in one of
the states, a process which was based on the pattern of land use. Most of the Sami who held
taxed lands on both sides of the new border could choose their citizenship freely. They could
continue to use land and resources on the other side of the border, but could only keep taxed
lands within the borders of the state of which they had become citizens (Pedersen 2006,
pp. 11 –31, 75– 90). The enforced citizenship in one of the states was a part of the goal to
separate the population in the border region, but this was not aimed at the Sami. They could
continue their traditional resource use on both sides of the border, and the process of
changing citizenship was still relatively uncomplicated; the Sami were separate from the
rest of the population, a nation apart from Swedes and Norwegians. Even though they now
became citizens of either state, they were not part of society; they were viewed as a nation
within the nation. But in one sense the border treaty of 1751 laid the foundation for the
creation of divisions within the Sami people. The enforced citizenship – even though this
term held a quite different meaning compared to today – and the fact that Sami no longer
546 P. Lantto

could hold taxed lands on both sides of the border meant the first step towards making the
national identity superior, and Sami identity subordinate.
The Lapp Codicil is generally viewed positively, and has even been described as the
Magna Charta of the Sami. Aarseth (1989, pp. 53– 61) argues, for example, that it both
protected Sami rights and stimulated reindeer husbandry, which was still a relatively new
and developing industry. Others have a more critical perspective. Eriksson (1997,
pp. 84 –86) argues that the Sami actually benefited from a situation where the states were
involved in conflict. With a peaceful situation, and a regulation of the borders, the states
could consolidate their national sovereignty, which affected the Sami negatively.
According to Päiviö (2001, pp. 40– 41), the regulations concerning the Sami taxed lands,
which prohibited a person from holding such lands in both countries, changed the structure
of reindeer husbandry, making it more collective. This meant that the individually held Sami
taxed lands gradually disappeared, undermining Sami title to the land. During this early
period, while the borders were still undefined or open to the Sami, there was also an ongoing
parallel process within the nation states of removing the control of the land from the Sami,
replacing it with state control and claims of ownership (Lundmark 2006). So while the states
were still showing respect for the Sami and their resource use in their international relations,
they were at the same time enforcing a Western concept of land ownership that effectively
excluded all Sami who had a nomadic lifestyle.
Wars during the early nineteenth century brought about two major changes in the Sami
areas; neither had an immediate effect on the Sami, but both would have a significant impact
in the long run. Finland, which had been a part of the Swedish kingdom since the twelfth
century, was lost to Russia after a war in 1808– 1809. It became an autonomous Grand
Duchy, and the border towards Sweden was established in 1809 (Paasi 1996, pp. 82– 88,
Paasi 1999, p. 671). No special restrictions were put in place for the Sami crossing the new
border – some Sami living in Finland even maintained their Swedish citizenship and
continued to pay taxes there – but neither was there an amendment like the Codicil that
guaranteed their rights. Even though Russia was not one of the signatory powers of the
border treaty, the Sami resource use across the Norwegian –Finnish border – which had not
been changed due to the war – continued in much the same way during the years following
the war; Sami from the Finnish side fished in Norway, while Sami from the Norwegian side
herded reindeer in Finland. Tsar Alexander I had declared that he would uphold traditional
rights in Finland, and even though the Codicil was not specifically mentioned, Pedersen
(2006, pp. 114– 210) argues that it was known and respected.
The second change in the area was in the relationship between Norway and Sweden.
During the Napoleonic wars at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Denmark –Norway
became an ally to France while Sweden joined Great Britain. Even though the Swedish
participation in the war was very limited, the country was rewarded through the peace treaty
of Kiel in 1814, when Norway was separated from Denmark and forced into a union with
Sweden (Norborg and Sjöstedt 1996, pp. 141 – 143). What had previously been an
international border now became an internal border within the union. This, however, did not
mean that issues concerning this border became less complicated, but rather more, which I
will return to further on in this article.

A stricter regulation of the borders, 1826 – 1889

During the nineteenth century, the situation for the Sami began to change for the worse.
A first indication of the new climate came with the border treaty between Russia and
Norway in 1826, which divided the common areas in the border region between the
 Citizenship Studies 547

two countries. In the negotiations between the two states, the opinions and rights of the
Sami were given limited attention. The new border partitioned the traditional lands of two
of the local Sami communities, and the members were given three years to decide which
state they wanted to be citizens in. Their traditional resource use was to be respected for
six years, during which time these cross-border activities would be evaluated. Reindeer
husbandry was not included in these rights, however, officially prohibiting the Sami from
using traditional grazing land in the neighbouring state. After new negotiations, the two
states agreed in 1834 to abolish all Sami rights to use resources on the other side of the
border, apart from specific fishing rights in Norway for one of the Sami communities
whose members had become Russian citizens. Despite this decision, the Sami continued
their semi-nomadic life, herding reindeer and utilizing resources on both sides of the
border, but found it increasingly hard to do so during the second half of the nineteenth
century due to competition from a steadily growing non-Sami population (Andresen 1989,
Norges Offentlige Utredninger 1997, Chap. 7, Niemi 2005, pp. 390 – 397).
The treaty of 1826 thus indicated a different approach to the issue of Sami rights. The
concern for the well-being of the Sami people, displayed in the ideas behind the Codicil of
1751, was now replaced by political ambitions and national considerations. The Sami
areas were no longer regarded as Sami land under the jurisdiction of the states, but were
more and more viewed as integral parts of the nation states, and less consideration was
shown for the impact that specific actions and decisions had on the Sami.
This was clearly illuminated in 1852 when the Norwegian –Finnish border was closed
to the Sami. As mentioned earlier, the Codicil had been respected after 1809 even though
Russia had not officially acknowledged it, but there was growing discontent on both sides;
Finnish authorities complained that the reindeer herds of the Norwegian Sami were
steadily growing larger and that they were utilizing more grazing land in Finland than
before, while Norwegian authorities had objections to the fishing Finnish citizens carried
out in Norway. Both Finns and Sami fished, and while the former group could not claim
any rights based on the Codicil, Norwegian authorities also wanted to limit the fishing
rights of the Sami solely to the reindeer herders. Negotiations during the 1830s and 1840s
on a revised Codicil regulating the Norwegian –Finnish border failed despite that the two
sides agreed on most of the content in a new treaty. An effect of this failure was that the
relations in the border region steadily worsened, and when new negotiations were initiated
in 1851, Russia now claimed that the Codicil had for a long period been unknown by
Russian authorities, had never been acknowledged and was therefore not binding. The
Norwegians were also less inclined to actually seek a positive solution to the conflict. They
were suspicious of the intentions of the Russians, but there were also domestic
motivations. The nomadic Sami culture was viewed in an increasingly negative light by
the authorities, and if some Sami herders would be forced to shift to a sedentary lifestyle
following a border closure, this was regarded as progress, as a necessary modernization of
the area and its population. It would also improve the opportunities to control the
remaining reindeer herding Sami as well as the conditions for developing the northern
parts of the country. Unable to reach an understanding, Russia decided to close the border
for reindeer husbandry in 1852, while Norway responded by prohibiting Sami from
Finland to fish in Norway. The effects were hard felt for the Sami in both Norway and
Finland. In Norway, many herders left the industry to become fishermen, some moved
to Finland, while a large group became Swedish citizens (Niemi 2005, pp. 397– 399,
Pedersen 2006, pp. 166– 356). The citizenship of the Sami had thus become central in the
policies of the states, while their position and rights as an indigenous people was ignored.
They were no longer regarded as a nation within the nation, but rather as a problem, and
548 P. Lantto

they were used as an instrument to forward the national agendas of the states concerning
their borders and native policies.
The closing of the Finnish – Norwegian border most likely contributed to a state of
unrest among the Sami population in northern Norway, and the violence that took place in
Kautokeino in northern Norway later that year. A religious movement was gaining
momentum in the Sami population in the area, with its roots in Laestadianism, a Lutheran
revivalist movement which was growing in northern Norway, Sweden and Finland (Torp
1994, pp. 74 – 80). There were several driving forces behind this movement, apart from the
border closing; assimilation was becoming the goal of the Norwegian Sami policy, the
Sami were discriminated in the courts, and alcohol was a problem. The revivalist
movement had the goal of cleansing the region from alcohol and other negative external
influences. A few months after the closing of the border, there was a local Sami uprising,
and two Norwegians, the local policeman and a merchant, were killed, while a priest was
severely beaten. The perpetrators were quickly caught, many were imprisoned and two
leaders were later executed (Zorgdrager 1997, Lehtola 2004, pp. 38– 41).
Not all Sami herders who used grazing land on both sides of the Norwegian– Finnish
border gave up their traditional resource use, however. As previously mentioned, a few
moved to the Finnish side of the border, while a large number became Swedish citizens.
This last group, consisting of some 279 individuals with a little more than 20,000 reindeer,
had found an ingenious way of evading the border closure. Both the Norwegian –Swedish
and the Swedish – Finnish borders were still open for reindeer husbandry, a fact the herders
used. By assuming Swedish citizenship, they could continue using summer grazing lands
in Norway, and winter grazing lands in Finland, in many cases the same grazing land they
had traditionally used. Thus, for many of the Sami, the Swedish citizenship was only on
paper; they never used grazing land in Sweden or even stayed there (Lantto 2006,
pp. 39 –40). The issue of citizenship was thus still uncomplicated for this group of Sami; it
was unimportant which state they formally were citizens of, as long as they could maintain
their traditional life. By becoming citizens in either Sweden or Finland, many herders were
able to circumvent the effects of the 1852 border closure by using this change in
citizenship to their advantage. This was possible because the states still had not introduced
any stricter regulations of this process. When Sami wanted to change citizenship, they
were allowed to do so without the authorities reacting or trying to monitor the situation
more closely.
But this window of opportunity utilized by the Sami would also be shut, when Russia
in 1889 decided to close the Swedish – Finnish border for reindeer husbandry. The border
closure in 1852 had not had the intended effect due to the actions of the Sami herders who
had assumed Swedish citizenship, and after failed negotiations between Sweden and
Russia, yet another border was closed to the Sami with dire consequences. A new big wave
of citizenship change occurred when many of the Sami families who had become Swedish
citizens as a response to the 1852 border closure regained Norwegian
citizenship. They returned to limited grazing lands in Norway, while the herders who
remained in Sweden faced similar problems. In Sweden, forced relocations of herders to
more southern parts of the Sami area were seen as the only solution, and even though the
authorities had to abandon these plans in 1894, a few years later some herders moved
voluntarily (Lantto 2006).
For the Sami, the heartland of the territory they used was no longer an area of
communication and transition, but instead contained barriers dividing Sami groups. The
border between Norway and Sweden/Finland still followed the same geographical line, but
for the Sami its meaning had changed profoundly during the period. The border, when
 Citizenship Studies 549

established in 1751, and the citizenship that had followed with it, had been of little
importance and consequence, but through the actions of the states it had turned into a
genuine roadblock, and the citizenship they held now firmly forced the Sami into separate
and different national arenas. The process of defining the borders between the nation states
affected the ethnic community of the Sami, breaking up traditional Sami cultural areas and
creating new communities oriented within the limits placed by the national borders. This
laid the foundation for a successive lessening of the importance of local Sami identities,
replacing them with new ones, created by the borders, such as Swedish Sami and
Norwegian Sami. After these changes, the borders became more fixed, and the citizenship
of the Sami less fluid. The development in the Sami areas during the nineteenth century
was to a certain degree similar to the development in North America (Adelman and Aron
1999, p. 816). When the states partitioned and sealed off previously common areas, and
claimed territorial sovereignty, the Sami lost room to manoeuvre, to counteract negative
effects of certain political decisions.

Borders become barriers, 1919– 1944

The closing of the Swedish –Finnish border placed focus on the border between Norway
and Sweden. It was now the only border where the Sami still could utilize resources on
both sides with relatively few limitations, but this was about to change, and the process had
already begun in the previous decades. During the nineteenth century, ideas of cultural
hierarchies had begun to influence the thinking in the Nordic states, relegating the Sami to
a subordinate position in this imagined structure. They were considered inferior to the
settlers, and reindeer husbandry was judged to be of less value than agriculture. It was
more or less accepted that the Sami would have to vacate land needed for agriculture;
nomads could not have the same right to land as settlers (Lundmark 2006, pp. 95 –96).
This shift was evident in both Sweden and Norway, and would have a clear effect on
border issues.
From the 1840s, Norway began to work actively to renegotiate the Codicil, but the goal
soon became to abolish it completely. Agriculture was expanding, and Norway wanted
more space for this development – and to increase the Norwegian population in the
northern part of the country in the process – rather than having ‘primitive’ nomads grazing
reindeer, especially if these were ‘Swedish’ Sami with ‘Swedish’ reindeer. The Sami were
regarded as an obstacle to national development (Pedersen 2006, pp. 37 – 39, 361 –364).
After the 1852 border closure, the Codicil was viewed as unilaterally beneficial for
Sweden, allowing its Sami to graze reindeer on Norwegian territory while the Sami in
Norway were now deprived of corresponding rights in Finland.
Sweden, on the other hand, held a quite different view of reindeer husbandry. The
industry was regarded as the only one that could utilize the northern inland areas, and was
thus an important economic resource, both from a national perspective and for the
population in the area. But recurring crises in the reindeer industry from the mid-
eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries, where some Sami had lost all or most of their
reindeers, had prompted many to move from Sweden to the Norwegian coast to establish
themselves as fishermen (Kvist 1989, pp. 19 –24, 41 – 43). Swedish authorities viewed this
development with concern, fearing that a weakened reindeer industry would have negative
economic consequences. It was thus in the economic interest of the Swedish state to
support reindeer herding, since a thriving industry was important to prevent poverty
among the Sami and subsequent relocations to Norway. This contributed to a Swedish
Sami policy aimed at preserving the Sami.
550 P. Lantto

Initiatives were taken by Norwegian authorities already in the 1840s to initiate

negotiations with Sweden concerning the Codicil, but nothing concrete came out of these
negotiations until 1883, when a Swedish –Norwegian Reindeer Grazing Act was finally
agreed upon. The Act contained some restrictions in the use of the land in an attempt to
limit the worsening conflicts between reindeer husbandry and agriculture, along with
detailed regulations of herding districts, migration routes and compensation for damages,
but did not limit the number of reindeer, which had been an objective of the Norwegian
authorities. In 1905, when the union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved,
negotiations led to a revision of the Act of 1883. It did little to dissolve the continuing
Norwegian discontent, but in 1919, after new rounds of negotiations and investigations,
Sweden and Norway signed a Reindeer Herding Convention. Through the Convention,
large areas in Norway that traditionally had been used by Sami herders from Sweden were
now closed to them, while strict restrictions concerning the time the remaining grazing
areas could be used and the number of reindeer that were allowed were enforced
(Lundmark 2002, pp. 122– 126, Lae 2003). The signing of the Convention finally gave
Norwegian authorities the necessary tool to limit and restrict the rights of ‘Swedish’
herders to graze ‘Swedish’ reindeer in Norway.
The 1919 Convention was followed by new ones in 1949 and 1972, and in the latter,
the Sami from Sweden lost around 70% of the then remaining grazing areas in Norway,
without any compensation for the losses. The 1972 Convention, as the previous
agreements (Lantto 2009), was met with protests from the Sami in Sweden, but without
success. The interest of reindeer herding had long since stopped being a priority in
Sweden, neither domestically nor in international relations; since the late nineteenth
centuries, many industries – such as mines, hydropower and forestry – had been
established in the reindeer grazing areas, diminishing the importance of reindeer herding,
and good relationship with Norway was prioritized over trying to protect indigenous rights
of the Sami across the border. Lars Norberg, who in 2003 was appointed chairman of the
Swedish delegation in the negotiations with Norway concerning a new convention, has
described the older conventions as a flagrant example of the ‘legal injustice and abuse of
power’ that had been detrimental to the traditional rights of the Swedish Sami in Norway
(Udtja Lasse 2007, p. 67).
The border that previously had received the least attention, the one between Finland
and Russia, also came into focus during this period. Finland had declared independence in
1917 after the Russian revolution, and the new border towards the Soviet Union was
established in 1920 (Paasi 1996, pp. 95– 101). In the north, the Finnish territory included
the Pechenga area, the previous Russian border region with Norway. This was also the
final blow to the trans-border resource use of the Sami in the area, regulated through the
1826 treaty, which was finally abolished in 1924 in a treaty between Norway and Finland
(Andresen 1989, pp. 151– 164, Niemi 2005, pp. 406 – 409). The plight of this Sami group
did not end here, however. A part of the Finnish speaking population had remained on the
Soviet side of the border after the treaty in 1920, which was a cause for tension between
the two states. During World War II, war broke out between the two parties twice, first
1939 –1940, then 1941 –1944. In a peace treaty in 1944, Finland lost a part of its eastern
territory (Paasi 1996, pp. 102 – 118). The Sami in Pechenga were evacuated both in 1939 –
1940, and then again in 1944. When it became clear that this territory would be ceded to
the Soviet Union, most of the Sami opted to remain Finnish citizens, which meant that they
had to be relocated. In 1949, they could move into their new settlement at Lake Inari, close
to their old territory on the other side of the new border (Ingold 1976, pp. 5 –8).
 Citizenship Studies 551

Old borders, new policies? The development after 1945

A stricter regulation of borders, a more fixed and unchanging citizenship, revolutionary
unrest, and two world wars, all these factors had contributed to a more concentrated national
focus of Sami activists during the first half of the twentieth century. They restricted their
actions to the national arena having to accept this as their stage, and repeated statements by
leading Sami that they and their movements were loyal subjects of their respective state
illustrated this. But after the end of World War II, much has happened within Sami society,
even though the borders remain and still constitute dividing barriers within the Sami areas.
During the 1950s, contacts between the Sami in the Nordic countries increased. The
political Sami movements within the three countries had become better organized since the
war, which was evident in the successful establishment of the Nordic Sami Council in 1956
(Lantto 2000, 2003). The organization changed its name to the Sami Council in 1992 when
the Sami from Russia also became members. The early growth of organized pan-Sami
cooperation was described in 1959 by one of the leading Sami activists in Sweden, Gustav
Park, as a development where ‘one Sami people unconstrained by dividing state borders is
on the verge of being welded together into a true national community’ (Lantto 2003, p. 68).
International events and debate were also beginning to affect the Sami movement during
this time, influencing both the rhetoric and the outlook, and the term indigenous was starting
to be used as a base for Sami demands for stronger land rights.
In this process, the Sami made it clear that they regard nationality and identity as
something quite different from citizenship, which was expressed by the Nordic Sami
Council in 1971:
We are Sami and want to be Sami, without therefore being any more or less than other peoples
in the world. We are one people, with a territory, a language, and a cultural and societal
structure of our own. Through history we have found our subsistence and lived in Sápmi, and
we own a culture that should be developed and continue existing. (Ruong 1982, pp. 257–258)
This was an important symbolic statement, to mark that they were Sami first and foremost,
from the Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian or Russian side of Sápmi, indicating that the
citizenship in each state came second. But the partitioning of the Sami areas, and the fact
that the Sami are citizens in four different states, has also been used strategically by the
Sami during this period. Positive decisions and developments in one of the other states
have consistently been used as leverage in national negotiations to influence their own
state to follow the examples.
At the same time, there are problems with upholding this image of a unified Sami
people. In 2005, the Swedish government cancelled the 1972 Reindeer Herding Convention
with Norway, meaning that the Lapp Codicil again would come into force for the first time
since 1883. Norway, however, did not accept this, and quickly passed a national act based
on the 1972 Convention. Despite a relatively strong legal position, the Swedish reaction to
the unilateral Norwegian action was weak, and as a result, confusion and conflicts ensued as
to which law the herders from Sweden should follow. An agreement concerning a new
convention was finally reached in 2009, an agreement which has met with strong criticism
from reindeer herders in Sweden (Udtja Lasse 2007, Broderstad 2008, pp. 141– 166,
205 –211, Samefolket 2008, Lindstrand 2009, pp. 12– 13). The situation has contributed to
tensions between the herders, where Sami in Norway want to preserve or strengthen the
rights they have gained, while Sami in Sweden want to regain lost rights.
The status of the Sami has been considerably strengthened especially in the Nordic
states. The Alta conflict in Norway during the 1970s and 1980s, concerning the building of
a hydroelectric power station in the river Alta (Aarseth 2006, pp. 266 – 272), and the Taxed
552 P. Lantto

Mountain Case in Sweden 1966– 1981, a court case where the Sami challenged the claims
of the Swedish state of ownership to land in the County of Jämtland (e.g. Jahreskog 1982),
were instrumental in highlighting the situation of the Sami and in changing the Sami
policies, even though the Sami lost in both cases. This development can be illustrated
through some important attributes; Sami national symbols have been created, such as a
national anthem, a national day as well as the use of the term Sápmi to describe the Sami
areas, and some of the Sami languages have gained official recognition. But perhaps the
most important symbol of the changing status of the Sami has been the establishment of
Sami parliaments in Finland, Norway and Sweden, in 1973, 1989 and 1993, respectively.
These political bodies have contributed to further reforms and an increased visibility for
the Sami. There is also a formalized cooperation across the borders between the Sami
parliaments through meetings between representatives from each country, and in 2005,
Russian representatives participated for the first time in a joint session with all three
parliaments (Eriksson 1997, pp. 149– 152, Hällgren 2005, pp. 4 –7). But the parliaments
are not as yet truly tools of sovereignty, but more or less parts of the national
administrations – even though the position and strength differ among the three countries.
They are also still based on a national level, and the Sami in Russia are more or less
excluded since they lack a parliament of their own.
Apart from the establishment of the Sami parliaments, development on the state level
is relatively slow and very uneven, where every step forward meets with resistance.
Norway is the only one of the four countries that has ratified the ILO Convention No. 169
concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, and through the 2005
Finnmark Act it has recognized that the Sami have certain rights based on their status as an
indigenous people (Broderstad 2008, pp. 24– 26, 81– 105). Most of the land in Finnmark
(app. 95%), the northernmost County in Norway, was previously regarded state owned,
but through this Act the control of the land has now been transferred to the people of
Finnmark, represented by the newly created Finnmark Estate, whose board is appointed by
the Sami parliament and the Finnmark County Council. But while Norway has improved
the rights of Sami who are Norwegian citizens, they have failed to respect the indigenous
rights of ‘foreign’ Sami, Sami who are Swedish citizens, in Norway, in the negotiations
concerning the Reindeer Herding Convention (Broderstad 2008, pp. 158– 159, 172 –173).
All four states have also received regular criticism from the United Nation Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for their handling of Sami issues (CERD 2003a,
2003b, 2004, 2008a, 2008b). And finally, while the adoption of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 is a potentially important step forward for
indigenous peoples, the Swedish position, for example, is that the national Sami policy
will remain virtually unchanged; ownership rights to land are not on the horizon, Sweden
must maintain a balance among the interests of different groups when it comes to land use
and the Sami would not have veto rights (UN 2007).

Conclusion
A Western concept of space that territory is viewed as a commodity and as such can be
owned, bought and sold (Paasi 1996, p. 19) was established during the period this article
has focused on, a concept that in many ways was foreign to the Sami. This was enacted
through the process of establishing state borders that partitioned Sápmi. The negotiations
on and definitions of the borders took place above the heads of the Sami, as did unilateral
and bilateral decisions concerning border crossings. The people more affected than any
other by the new borders and the control of them have had very limited opportunities to
 Citizenship Studies 553

influence the decision processes. The borders were of little consequence to the Sami as
long as they were permeable and citizenship could be changed easily. Even when one
border was closed, some Sami groups could negotiate the situation through a change of
citizenship and maintain their traditional way of life – as long as others were open.
Citizenship was then still a question of convenience to the Sami, and held no significant
meaning. But when security issues and other domestic or international concerns led to
stricter border policies during the nineteenth century, to be followed by more regulations
of and obstacles to changes in citizenship, the Sami were severely affected and became
more and more forced into different national frames.
Whereas citizenship and borders are important to politics of inclusion and exclusion, to
establish insiders who belong and outsiders who do not, as a line separating ‘us’ from
‘them’ (Rose 1995, p. 99, Paasi 2001, p. 25), the Sami in the Nordic countries and northern
Russia initially had no natural role in this dichotomy. They were neither fully included nor
excluded in the created national contexts, but rather secluded, cut off from traditionally
used lands and separated from other parts of the group by national borders and enforced
citizenship, thus creating boundaries within the group.
When the Sami originally became citizens, this was not as individuals; they were
collectively incorporated while their rights as Sami, their collective interests as a people,
became more and more ignored (Broderstad 2008, p. 116). Even though traditional Sami
resource use and migration across the newly established borders were respected and even
protected in the first border treaty through the Lapp Codicil, the enforced citizenship in
one state created a structure for division within the Sami communities which successively
became more pronounced. The state structures, which had previously been open and
accommodating to the Sami, now became barriers separating Sami groups and damaging
cross-border cultural communities. The Sami were forced to form new communities
within the borders of the nation states, cooperating in a new direction with groups they
previously had had little or no contact with. The partitioning of the territory between the
states, the structuring of reality captured in maps and political rhetoric, changed the social
and economic reality of the Sami as well as the Sami themselves; from simply being Sami
to being Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish or Russian Sami. Citizenship had become a tool for
a stronger control and eventual assimilation of the Sami. The Codicil was the first stone in
the foundation of this partitioning of both the Sami areas and the Sami people. This altered
view of the Sami people is, for instance, reflected in the ongoing Swedish – Norwegian
conflict concerning cross-border reindeer grazing. One important aim of the Codicil had
been to preserve the ‘Lappish Nation’, but when Norway during the nineteenth century
started to voice concerns over the Sami rights protected by the Codicil, it was because
these rights were held by Swedish Sami. They were no longer a part of a Sami nation; they
were citizens of another state and their Sami nationality/identity was now secondary.
The establishment of some of the borders meant immediate breaks in the traditional
cross-border movement and resource use of the Sami, while others initially were more
open and accommodating. But even in these latter cases, the border between Norway and
Sweden – Finland and between Sweden and Finland, later developments led in the same
direction. The partitioning of the common areas meant that the Sami no longer could move
in a grey area where two or even three of the states competed for influence, through their
enforced citizenship they became included in the larger national settings, and used by the
states. The Russian annexation of Finland, and the inability or unwillingness of
Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish and Russian authorities to find a common ground for
positive solutions of border issues, led to the division of Sami cultural areas. The long and
ongoing disagreement between Sweden and Norway has successively led to increasing
554 P. Lantto

restrictions in Sami cross-border activities. The borders have changed the basis of
subsistence for the Sami and partitioned cultural communities. From the 1950s, the Sami
have been more aware of this problem, and have actively attempted to bridge the divisions
created by the partitioning borders, but these efforts are still to some extent based in the
separate national arenas.
In a long historical perspective, all the borders have thus affected Sami movement and
unity negatively, but none more so than the borders separating the Sami in Russia from
those in the Nordic countries. The different versions of Christianity that the missionaries
working in Sápmi brought with them – Orthodox in Russia and Protestant in the Nordic
countries – is a minor difference, but falling behind the Iron Curtain very effectively
isolated the Sami in Russia in many ways for a long period. The huge size of Russia, and
the fact that the Sami is only one – and a very small one at that – of several indigenous
peoples, has also further limited the possibilities for the Sami in Russia to strengthen their
position to one comparable with the Sami in the Nordic countries.
Perhaps the idea of a ‘borderless world’ or a regionalization of Europe, which some
researchers see in the future, could mean new opportunities for the Sami. But even if this
scenario is not realized, the changing international situation for indigenous peoples like
the Sami gives them room to circumvent the states and act on other levels (Newhouse
1997, Newman and Paasi 1998, Paasi 2001, Broderstad 2008, pp. 119 – 127, 206 –208).
Sápmi could potentially gain a more prominent role and position as a region, even though
it often is overshadowed by other overlapping concepts such as the Nordic cooperation or
the Barents region. Still, this is probably the most promising vision of the future for this
region and its people. But since many Sami live outside Sápmi today, how can and will
they fit into a strengthened Sami sovereignty? This group is generally not included in the
public debate, and is not a part of the official image of the Sami; they form a barely visible
group within the minority. Whatever the future development will be, it is necessary that
the states become more accommodating towards Sami demands. It is essential that some
vital points be fulfilled; increased autonomy for the Sami parliaments, a strengthening of
the position of the Sami in Russia, ideally with the creation of a Sami parliament,
harmonization of legislations and rights, constitutional protection, control/ownership of
land and a joint Sami parliament for all Sami. Only then can some of the negative effects
of the state borders and enforced citizenship be reversed.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Patricia K. Wood for planting the idea for the article, and the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Note
1. Up until the 1960s, the Sami were officially referred to as Lapps, an originally Finnish term that
they themselves perceived as derogatory.

References
Aarseth, B., 1989. Grenseoppgjørene og konsekvensene av disse for den nordsamiske bosetting i
Norge. In: B. Aarseth, ed. Grenser i sameland. Oslo: Norsk Folkemuseum, 43 – 81.
Aarseth, B., 2006. Norsk samepolitik 1945 –1990: Målsetting, virkemidler og resultater. Oslo: Vett
& Viten and Norsk Folkemuseum.
Adelman, J. and Aron, S., 1999. From borderlands to borders: empires, nation-states, and the peoples
in between in North American history. American historical review, 104 (3), 814– 841.
Anderson, M., 1996. Frontiers: territory and state formation in the modern world. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
 Citizenship Studies 555

Andresen, A., 1989. Sii’daen som forsvant: Østsamene i Pasvik etter den norsk-russiske
grensetrekningen i 1826. Kirkenes: Sør-Varanger Museum.
Broderstad, E.G., 2008. The bridge-building role of political procedures: indigenous rights and
citizenship rights within and across the borders of the nation-state. Tromsø: Department of
Political Science, University of Tromsø.
CERD, 2003a. Concluding observations of the committee on the elimination of racial
discrimination: Finland. CERD/C/63/CO/5, 10 December.
CERD, 2003b. Concluding observations of the committee on the elimination of racial
discrimination: Norway. CERD/C/63/CO/8, 10 December.
CERD, 2004. Concluding observations of the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination:
Sweden. CERD/C/64/CO/8, 10 May.
CERD, 2008a. Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under article 9 of the convention.
CERD/C/SWE/CO/18, August.
CERD, 2008b. Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under article 9 of the convention.
CERD/C/RUS/CO/19, 22 September.
Cairns, A.C., 2000. Citizens plus: aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state. Vancouver: UBC
Press.
Chesterman, J. and Galligan, B., 1997. Citizens without rights: aborigines and Australian
citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Citizenship studies, 2003. Vol. 7 (4).
Eriksson, J., 1997. Partition and redemption: a Machiavellian analysis of Sami and Basque
patriotism. Umeå: Department of Political Science, Umeå University.
Hansen, L.I., 2005. Fra Nöteborgsfreden til Lappekodicillen, ca. 1300– 1751: Folkegrupper og
statsdannelse på Nordkalotten med utgangspunkt i Finnmark. In: S. Imsen, ed. Grenser og
grannelag i Nordens historie. Oslo: Cappelen, 362– 386.
Hällgren, K., 2005. Historisk konferens i Jokkmokk. Samefolket, 2005, No. 3, 4 – 7.
Ingold, T., 1976. The Skolt Lapps today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jahreskog, B., ed., 1982. The Sami national minority in Sweden. Uppsala: The Legal Rights
Foundation.
Kvist, R., 1989. Rennomadismens dilemma: Det rennomadiska samhällets förändring i Tuorpon och
Sirkas 1760– 1860. Umeå: Department of History, Umeå University.
Lae, E., 2003. Fra Karlstadkonvensjon til reinbeitekonvensjon: Forhandlinger i reinbeitesaken
mellom Norge og Sverige fram til reinbeitekonvensjonen av 1919. Guovdageaidnu: Sami
Instituhtta.
Lantto, P., 2000. Tiden börjar på nytt. En analys av samernas etnopolitiska mobilisering i Sverige
1900– 1950. Umeå: Kulturgräns Norr.
Lantto, P., 2003. Att göra sin stämma hörd: Svenska Samernas Riksförbund, samerörelsen och
svensk samepolitik 1950– 1962. Umeå: Kulturgräns norr.
Lantto, P., 2006. Rotlösa nomader? De första försöken att tvångsförflytta samer i Sverige. Oknytt, 27
(3 – 4), 38 – 63.
Lantto, P., 2009. Gränsstängningar, tvångsförflyttningar och samisk politisk mobilisering.
In: L. Elenius, M. Enbuske, and P. Lantto, eds. Fredens konsekvenser: Samhällsförändringar
i norr efter 1809. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology, 145– 155.
Lehtola, V.-P., 2004. The Sami people – traditions in transition. Aanaar-Inari: Kustannus-Puntsi
Publisher.
Lindstrand, Å., 2009. Skepsis mot ny konvention. Samefolket, 3, 12 – 13.
Lundmark, L., 2002. ‘Lappen är ombytlig, ostadig och obekväm’: Svenska statens samepolitik i
rasismens tidevarv. Umeå: Norrlands Universitetsförlag.
Lundmark, L., 2006. Samernas skatteland i Norr-och Västerbotten under 300 år. Stockholm:
Institutet för rättshistorisk forskning.
McManus, S., 2005. The line which separates: race, gender, and the making of the Alberta –
Montana borderlands. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
McManus, S., 2008. Unsettled pasts, unsettling borders: women, wests, nations. In: E. Jameson and
S. McManus, eds. One step over the line: toward a history of women in the North American
wests. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 29 –47.
Mörkenstam, U., 1999. Om ‘Lapparnes privilegier’: Föreställningar om samiskhet i svensk
samepolitik 1883– 1997. Stockholm: Department of Political Studies, Stockholm University.
Newhouse, J., 1997. Europe’s rising regionalism. Foreign affairs, 76 (1), 67 – 84.
556 P. Lantto

Newman, D. and Paasi, A., 1998. Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: boundary
narratives in political geography. Progress in human geography, 22 (2), 186– 207.
Niemi, E., 2005. Etnisitet, nasjonalitet og grenseforhold i det nordligste Skandinavia fram til vår
egen tid. In: S. Imsen, ed. Grenser og grannelag i Nordens historie. Oslo: Cappelen, 387–415.
Norborg, L.A. and Sjöstedt, L., 1996. Grannländernas historia. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Norges Offentlige Utredninger, 1997. NOU 1997: 4. Naturgrunnlaget for Samisk kultur. Oslo:
Statens forvaltningstjenste.
Paasi, A., 1996. Territories, boundaries and consciousness: the changing geographies of the
Finnish – Russian border. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Paasi, A., 1999. Boundaries as social practice and discourse: the Finnish– Russian border. Regional
studies, 33 (7), 669– 680.
Paasi, A., 2001. Europe as a social process and discourse: considerations of place, boundaries and
identity. European urban and regional studies, 8 (1), 7 – 28.
Paasi, A., 2003. Boundaries in a globalizing world. In: K. Anderson, M. Domosh, S. Pile, and
N. Thrift, eds. Handbook of cultural geography. London: SAGE Publications, 462– 472.
Paasi, A., 2005. Generations and the ‘development’ of border studies. Geopolitics, 10 (4), 663–671.
Pedersen, S., 2006. Lappekodisillen i nord 1751– 1859 – Fra grenseavtale og sikring av samernas
rettigheter til grensesperring og Samisk ulykke. Thesis (PhD). Universitetet i Tromsø.
Peterson, N. and Sanders, W., eds, 1998. Citizenship and indigenous Australians: changing
conceptions and possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Päiviö, N.-J., 2001. Lappskattelandens rättsliga utveckling i Sverige – En utredning om
lappskattelandens och de samiska rättigheternas utveckling från mitten av 1600-talet till 1886-
års renbeteslag. Guovdageaidnu: Sami Instituhtta.
Rose, G., 1995. Place and identity: a sense of place. In: D. Massey and P. Jess, eds. A place in the
world? Places, cultures and globalization. The shape of the world: explorations in human
geography. Vol. 4. Oxford: The Open Geography, 87 – 132.
Ruong, I., 1982. Samerna i historien och nutiden. Stockholm: BonnierFakta.
Samefolket, 2008.
Torp, E., 1994. Fra markafinn til same: Etnopolitisk mobilisering i en læstadiansk kontekst. Umeå:
Center for Arctic Research, Umeå University.
Udtja Lasse, 2007. Begrav mitt hjärta vid Udtjajaure. Stockholm: Emma Publishing.
UN, 2007. General assembly. GA/10612, 13 September.
Zorgdrager, N., 1997. De rettferdiges strid, Kautokeino 1852: Samisk motstand mot norsk
kolonialisme. Nesbru: Vett & Viten and Norsk Folkemuseum.