Introduction
Both Arctic and global governance systems have entered a period of profound political and institutional transition. Governance frameworks originally developed during an era associated with cooperation, scientific exchange, and expanding participation are increasingly operating within a geopolitical environment shaped by strategic competition, securitization, declining institutional trust, and the erosion of multilateral consensus.
The Arctic Council continues to function under the shadow of geopolitical rupture following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, while Indigenous rights mechanisms within the United Nations system face mounting financial pressures, political polarization, and growing uncertainty surrounding the future of multilateral cooperation.
An April 27 panel, convened by the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University in collaboration with Harvard’s Arctic Initiative, brought together scholars, Indigenous advocates, and practitioners working across Arctic governance and international human rights systems for a discussion exploring how Indigenous diplomacy is evolving under conditions of geopolitical fragmentation, institutional strain, and changing governance priorities.
The panel featured Malu Rosing, Advisor on Arctic and Human Rights System, of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs; Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer, Faculty Fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, of Georgetown University; Elsa Stamatopoulou, Former Chief of the Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Ιndigenous Issues; Andrey N. Petrov, Distinguished Research Chair in Community Resilience and Sustainability, Professor of Geography, and ARCTICenter Director at the University of Northern Iowa; and Mariana Katzarova, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Russian Federation.
Indigenous peoples today are more formally present and institutionally visible within global governance systems than at any previous point in history. On the other hand, the political environments surrounding those institutions are becoming increasingly unequal, polarized, and difficult to navigate. As a result, questions of who speaks, on whose behalf, and under what conditions acquire greater significance.
The panel coincided with the twenty-fifth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) in New York, creating an immediate connection between debates unfolding within international institutions and broader transformations affecting Indigenous governance.
The panel aimed to:
- examine how Indigenous diplomacy operates across national, regional, and global governance systems amid an increasingly contested international order;
- explore how changing security dynamics are reshaping the political conditions surrounding Indigenous participation and representation;
- assess the future role of Indigenous authority within governance institutions facing declining cooperation and growing institutional strain;
- strengthen dialogue between Indigenous advocacy, academic research, and policy communities working across Arctic and international governance spaces.
A central question emerged throughout the conversation: How do governance systems adapt when the political conditions sustaining participation, legitimacy, and authority become increasingly unstable?
Indigenous Authority as a Governance Institution
A recurring theme throughout the panel was that Indigenous diplomacy can no longer be understood as a supplementary dimension of global politics. Participants instead described Indigenous authority as a foundational pillar of contemporary global governance architecture, shaped through decades of institution-building, political mobilization, and struggles for self-determination.
Speakers emphasized that Indigenous peoples have not merely entered existing governance structures, they have actively reshaped international norms through long-term diplomatic engagement. From the development of Indigenous participation within the United Nations system since the 1970s to the creation of the Arctic Council’s Permanent Participant model, Indigenous actors have helped redefine institutional practices and understandings of political authority beyond the state.
Indigenous diplomacy is not merely representation within existing institutions, but a mechanism through which legitimacy, cooperation, and authority are negotiated across regional and international political arenas. The discussion highlighted how Indigenous organizations have contributed to the emergence of governance models that define international and Arctic cooperation today, including within the Arctic Council itself.
At the same time, participants cautioned against equating institutional participation with political autonomy. Participation mechanisms may remain formally intact even as the conditions for autonomous representation—including organizational independence, independent funding, and the ability to speak without political pressure—become progressively fragile. As a result, questions of representation, accountability, and institutional legitimacy are becoming central to contemporary debates about the future of Indigenous diplomacy.
Governing in an Era of Geopolitical Fragmentation
A second theme concerned the changing geopolitical environment within which Indigenous governance now operates.
Several participants stressed that many governance frameworks designed during the post-Cold War, cooperation-oriented era are increasingly strained by financial constraints, political polarization, and geopolitical tensions.
Indigenous organizations must navigate complex governance environments involving states, scientific institutions, NGOs, businesses, international organizations, and security-driven policy agendas. These overlapping systems generate new opportunities for engagement while simultaneously creating new pressures and constraints.
Participants noted that Indigenous rights are not necessarily being removed from governance systems altogether. Instead, they are being reframed through the language of strategic necessity (as essential to Arctic development and critical infrastructure), territorial security (as subordinate to sovereignty and national security concerns), and competing claims to authority (between Indigenous institutions, state agencies, and corporate actors). Formal mechanisms originally intended to expand inclusion can simultaneously acquire growing geopolitical value for states seeking to project legitimacy, stability, and cooperative governance internationally.
As geopolitical tensions intensify and democratic backsliding affects diverse regions, the challenge may no longer be limited to securing participation within governance structures—a process that has expanded considerably over recent decades. Increasingly, it concerns whether the political conditions necessary for independent representation and collective action can be sustained at all.
Historical Memory, Activism, and Institutional Accountability
Participants repeatedly emphasized that contemporary debates surrounding Indigenous governance cannot be understood apart from longer histories of political exclusion across the Arctic. Indigenous communities have navigated repeated periods of state restructuring, territorial transformation, and political marginalization while sustaining forms of collective organization and transnational cooperation that continue to shape governance debates today.
Speakers argued that the legitimacy of Indigenous authority ultimately derives not from institutional recognition alone, but from representatives’ continuing relationship with the communities in whose name they speak. Activism, documentation, and community-based advocacy were therefore discussed as essential mechanisms through which representation remains connected to lived realities and political accountability is maintained.
Participants challenged the tendency to separate activism from governance. Indigenous diplomacy, it was argued, does not begin within international institutions. It begins within communities themselves—through the documentation of local experiences, the articulation of political claims, and the continual effort to make Indigenous realities visible within larger state-centered governance systems. Maintaining stronger connections between Indigenous activism, research, and international institutions was therefore identified as particularly important at a moment when many Indigenous communities face shrinking political space, increasing political pressures, and growing institutional uncertainty.
Criminalization and Shrinking Political Space
The closing reflections by Mariana Katzarova, United Nations Special Rapporteur, on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, drew attention to a more immediate challenge: the shrinking political space for Indigenous participation.
Focusing on the intensifying criminalization of Indigenous activism in Russia, participants pointed to how engagement with international Indigenous rights mechanisms increasingly carries direct political risk for Indigenous activists and human rights defenders operating under authoritarian conditions. Recent arrests of Indigenous activists, the use of extremism and terrorism legislation against civil society actors, and increasing pressure directed toward environmental and anti-war advocacy were discussed as evidence of a contraction in civic space and more activity by the state in shaping the terms through which Indigenous governance is presented internationally.
The questions raised during the Harvard panel also surfaced at the twenty-fifth session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York, held under the theme “Ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ health, including in the context of conflict.”
Across multiple sessions, Indigenous delegates from conflict-affected regions spoke about militarization, displacement, extractive industries, environmental destruction, forced assimilation, and the long-term consequences of colonial governance structures.
Notably, representatives of the Russian Federation largely avoided the language of “conflict,” instead emphasizing state policies aimed at preserving Indigenous cultures, supporting traditional livelihoods, and maintaining national unity. Official narratives stressed “traditional values,” multicultural harmony, and the compatibility of centralized statehood with ethnic diversity, while Indigenous grievances connected to extractive development, environmental degradation, and political repression remained largely absent from official presentations. Independent Indigenous rights defenders participating in the Forum described a markedly different reality, pointing to arrests, criminal prosecutions, and growing political pressure directed toward Indigenous activists, as well as the broader crackdown on environmental, human rights, and anti-war advocacy.
The discussions revealed a broader tension increasingly visible across international institutions. Participants repeatedly noted that international institutions are increasingly confronted with mediating competing claims to representation, legitimacy, and authority. The capacity of governance institutions to address this distinction—between participation as institutional procedure and participation as autonomous political agency—may therefore become one of the defining dilemmas facing Arctic and international institutions in the years ahead.
Conclusion
Participants repeatedly emphasized that Indigenous diplomacy remains one of the most adaptive and resilient forms of political engagement operating across Arctic and international institutions today. Despite periods of geopolitical rupture and institutional uncertainty, Indigenous organizations, activists, and communities continue to maintain transnational networks, foster dialogue across political divides, and shape international governance debates in ways that extend far beyond a single region. Their experience suggests that Indigenous diplomacy will remain a critical source of institutional innovation, political engagement, and international cooperation even as the broader governance landscape continues to change.
The panel therefore served not simply as a reflection on current developments, but as an invitation to think more critically about how governance institutions adapt when the political conditions that once sustained cooperation can no longer be taken for granted—and what role Indigenous diplomacy will play in shaping that future. Participants emphasized that many of the questions raised during the discussion remain unresolved yet are becoming increasingly central to institutional resilience: how authority is recognized, how legitimacy is maintained, and how representation can remain accountable under increasingly unequal political conditions. The discussion underscored the importance of sustaining interdisciplinary and cross-institutional dialogue as part of a longer-term effort to engage these questions collectively. How they are addressed may shape not only the future of Arctic governance, but also the capacity of international institutions to remain credible and responsive in an era of profound geopolitical transformation.
