Introduction

This essay draws on insights generated through a participatory workshop held at the Polar Early Career World Summit (PECWS), a conference that brought together almost 250 early-career researchers (ECRs) from more than 24 countries. This session was designed as an interactive, dialogue-based session that brought together early-career researchers, practitioners, and participants engaged in Arctic science, policy, and community-oriented work. The session combined short framing presentations with facilitated break-out discussions, where participants engaged with three thematic case studies: (1) Indigenous-led governance and resilience, (2) ethical knowledge co-production, and (3) Greenland’s evolving role in Arctic governance. These themes were selected for their relevance to current debates in Arctic policy and alignment with the session’s focus on Indigenous self-determination and resilience. Each break-out group was asked to reflect on guiding questions, document key insights, and report back to the plenary.

The discussions were synthesized through rapporteur notes and collective reflections, which were then analysed thematically by the authors to identify recurring patterns, tensions, and emerging perspectives. While the workshop does not claim to represent a comprehensive or fully representative sample of Indigenous perspectives, it provides a valuable exploratory space for interdisciplinary dialogue. The findings presented in this essay should therefore be understood as reflective and interpretive, rather than generalizable, offering insight into how resilience and self-determination are being critically discussed within early-career and cross-sector Arctic research communities. The following sections build on these workshop discussions, integrating participant insights with existing literature to critically examine political resilience and Indigenous self-determination in Arctic governance.

The concept of resilience, used across multiple disciplines, has become an overarching metaphor for persistence, adaptability, and transformability without a cohesive understanding of what it truly denotes [1]. The workshop highlighted that resilience is not a homogenous concept; instead, it is a political, culturally specific framework. It must be redefined through Indigenous self-determination to resist political definitions that place responsibility on the individual. This is particularly crucial when discussing the notion of resilience in the context of Indigenous-led initiatives, where resilience is often rooted in relationships with land, water, language, and community practices that have survived colonial violence and environmental destruction. Exploring resilience through these perspectives allows us to examine how Indigenous-led co-production, political self-determination, and evolving governance structures—particularly in Greenland—reshape the understanding and practice of resilience across the Arctic.

Resilience in Indigenous-led co-production: Ethical and decolonial approaches to Arctic governance‌‌

Within academia and policy, the multifaceted nature of resilience is often overlooked, underscoring a broader issue in environmental research: the failure to ethically centre Indigenous Knowledge systems. One way to address this gap is to form decolonial co-production frameworks that prioritize equitable collaboration and the co-creation of knowledge. This form of collaborative governance demands a shift in power dynamics and decision-making structures that ensure Indigenous Knowledge is respected as a valid and essential source of insight. Whilst ethical co-production of knowledge is the aim, this first requires a critical interrogation of how resilience is defined in logocentric policy.

Resilience has been critiqued as a neoliberal governance idea that shifts the responsibility for managing adversity onto individuals and communities, while allowing the state to remove itself, consequently offering less support and protection [2]. Thus, resilience can be utilised as a tool that obscures systemic and colonial causes of vulnerability instead of addressing why people and communities are vulnerable in the first place [3]. This mainstream form of resilience centres around resilience as adaptation to disruption, and it is in stark contrast to Indigenous forms of resilience. Indigenous scholars purport that resilience is not merely an ability to “bounce back”, but it is a form of resistance, perseverance, survival, and self-determination; it is a method for connecting past, present, and future as part of Indigenous identity as a community and not individual adaptation alone [4]. A form of Indigenous resilience comes in the form of Indigenous-led co-production. This type of collaborative governance repoliticises the notion of resilience, whereby it is an expression of relational governance, collective self-determination, and political agency.

In the Arctic region, resilience is relational and inseparable from place-based ontologies. A positive example of collaborative governance is the Snowchange cooperative in Finland, an Indigenous-led organization that focuses on environmental restoration and cultural preservation. This organization exemplifies a form of resilience that combines Traditional Knowledge with contemporary environmental science, highlighting the potential of braided knowledge systems. However, due to bureaucratic friction and continual invalidation of Traditional Knowledge by Western peer-review standards, this form of knowledge is often dismissed as anecdotal or subjective [5]. Whilst co-production has many positive possibilities, it can still be a damaging method when differing knowledge systems are not regarded or valued to the same degree. Nevertheless, the role of Indigenous communities in addressing global issues, such as food security and climate change, by using traditional methods that have been adapted to modern challenges, highlights the necessary role of Indigenous Knowledge and culture when developing and enacting resilience strategies.

Another example of resilience can be seen in Alaska in the village of Kotzebue, where an Iñupiat community has received a $3.35 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Communities Sparking Investments in Transformative Energy (C‑SITE) and Local Government Energy Program [6]. Through this reclamation of energy sovereignty, the community will fund the design and construction of a new solar farm on land that an affiliated Native corporation, Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation, owns. This construction is a practical application of relational ontologies where resilience is understood through the intertwined relationship between ancestral territory, community-led initiatives and the environment. This is an effort towards Indigenous energy independence, whereby initiatives emphasize both technological solutions and the cultural empowerment of Indigenous communities by ensuring that they are active participants in shaping their futures. This initiative exemplifies a significant shift away from the neoliberal governance structures critiques earlier. The Kotzebue solar project repoliticises the energy landscape, rather than the village being a passive recipient of energy volatility. The community has sought energy independence by moving beyond solely adaptation and instead actively restructuring the systemic causes of its vulnerability.

Self-governance, a principle exemplified by the Sámi Parliament in Norway, also has a pivotal role in the resilience of Indigenous communities [7]. Within political and governance structures, self-determination enables Indigenous peoples to navigate challenges in a way that honours their communal values and priorities. However, the efficacy of the Sámi Parliament as a vehicle for enacting resilience is often constrained by the fact that its authority and role are primarily advisory, whereas the Norwegian state retains the final veto power over land-use decisions. This existing power hierarchy is unavoidable: the Sámi Parliament has created a platform for representation, but the state often dominates political agency. Consequently, the Sámi influence is restricted to a consultative role instead of a decisional role. This dynamic is exemplified by the Fosen wind farm case, where the Norwegian state continued industrial development on traditional grazing lands irrespective of opposition from Sámi reindeer herders and the Sámi Parliament.

Indigenous self-governance can, however, mediate with state structures, allowing for the ability to set priorities for resource use, and can be utilised to establish regulatory frameworks. Another role of self-governance can be to develop a mixed database or an integrated knowledge initiative, such as The Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA). This program uses data management tools that respect cultural sensitivity and scientific standards and has created a collaborative space, accessible to communities and scientists, for integrated understanding [8]. Initiatives such as the mixed database model offer an equitable approach to creating more inclusive knowledge systems. Furthermore, this system can reveal blind spots in policy, as well as present challenges to dominant epistemologies.

For resilience to be truly transformative, its multifaceted and diverse nature must be understood and respected. A way to ensure this is to embrace Indigenous-led frameworks and decolonial methodologies, as this has the potential to create spaces where resilience is not simply celebrated but instead actively cultivated. It is this shift in perspective that is needed to build equitable futures for all communities that are grounded in multiple and diverse epistemologies.

Political resilience and Indigenous self-determination in the Arctic

Political resilience is one form of resilience, and it is particularly significant in the context of Indigenous governance in the Arctic. This form of resilience emphasizes representation and self-determination. Political resilience is immediately connected with the concept of paradiplomacy [9]. A historical example is Chief Deskaheh, a Canadian Indigenous leader who, in the early 20th century, became one of the first Indigenous paradiplomats by bringing Haudenosaunee's claims to the League of Nations in Geneva. While this moment marked an important assertion of Indigenous sovereignty on the international stage, it also revealed structural limitations, as Indigenous actors lacked formal recognition within international legal systems, highlighting the gap between visibility and actual political influence. His advocacy for the self-determination of the Haudenosaunee confederacy was an important moment in the gaining of Indigenous sovereignty within global diplomacy.

Political resilience, as articulated here, extends beyond institutional continuity or adaptive governance capacity and instead foregrounds Indigenous peoples’ ability to assert authority, shape political agendas, and influence decision-making across scales [2–4]. However, this process is not without tension: Indigenous political agency often operates within state-centric systems that both enable and constrain self-determination, creating ongoing negotiation rather than full autonomy. Unlike state-centric or technocratic approaches to resilience, which often prioritize stability within existing governance structures, political resilience emphasizes transformation through self-determination, relational governance, and the redistribution of power [1,4]. In Arctic contexts, this form of resilience is inseparable from Indigenous participation in diplomatic, legal, and knowledge-producing arenas, yet representation/participation alone does not guarantee meaningful influence. In many governance settings, Indigenous actors remain consultative rather than decision-making authorities, raising questions about whether current frameworks genuinely redistribute power or merely signal inclusivity [8–11]. Political resilience thus functions both as a safeguard against the erosion of Indigenous rights and as a proactive strategy through which Indigenous communities actively shape Arctic futures. This framing provides a critical lens for understanding contemporary governance trajectories in the Arctic, particularly in Greenland, where evolving forms of autonomy, diplomacy, and knowledge governance reveal both the possibilities and structural constraints of Indigenous self-determination within state-based systems [12] .

In contemporary research and governance, political resilience continues to be anchored in Indigenous self-determination and the integration of Indigenous Knowledge systems. At institutions such as the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, this intersection is increasingly recognized as vital, not only for Indigenous communities but for the broader resilience of humanity in the face of climate and existential threats. Indigenous Knowledge provides essential foresight into climate adaptation strategies and more just approaches to Arctic governance.

Two key dimensions frame political resilience in the Arctic today. The first is Indigenous paradiplomacy, the active and meaningful inclusion of Indigenous actors and epistemologies in regional and international governance processes. The second is the advancement of equitable and non-extractive research practices. However, implementing these principles remains uneven. Co-production frameworks are often constrained by institutional funding structures, disciplinary hierarchies, and timelines that do not align with Indigenous knowledge practices, limiting their transformative potential. The knowledge co-production in such practices is prioritized, and colonial methodologies are explicitly rejected. Both aspects are essential for building a resilient, just future in the Arctic and beyond.

International legal frameworks reinforce the centrality of self-determination to Indigenous resilience [10,13,14]. At the same time, the distinction between internal and external self-determination can restrict the extent of Indigenous sovereignty, particularly where state interests in resources and territorial integrity take precedence. While the principle of external self-determination is generally reserved for sovereign states, Indigenous peoples possess the right to internal self-determination [11]. This includes the ability to participate in political, legal, and scientific processes that affect their communities. Political resilience, then, becomes both a condition for and a consequence of self-determination.

Greenland offers a timely example. As the territory becomes increasingly central to Arctic diplomacy, particularly within the Arctic Council, questions of political resilience, autonomy, and knowledge governance in Greenlandic contexts gain urgency. The ethical recommendations emerging from these discussions should emphasize long-term resilience, accountability, and plural epistemologies.

Greenland’s evolving role in Arctic governance: Challenges and opportunities

Resilience is not one-size-fits-all. It has to be understood in the context of local knowledge systems, especially those led by Indigenous communities. In the Arctic, resilience encompasses multiple, overlapping domains — including environmental, community, socio-economic, climate, and coastal resilience — each of which is shaped by specific lived realities. Among these, political resilience—rooted in self-determination and inclusive governance—is especially critical in the Arctic, as it strengthens communities’ ability to respond to both climate disruptions and socio-political pressures while ensuring that knowledge co-production is fair, equitable, and decolonial [12].

Greenland provides a compelling case study of these dynamics due to its unique governance status and growing role in Arctic diplomacy. This essay argues that Greenland should not be understood solely as a success story of Indigenous self-determination, but rather as a complex and evolving case that reveals both the opportunities and contradictions inherent in pursuing political resilience within global governance systems. Although the 2009 Self-Government Act granted Greenland control over its natural resources, marking a key step toward self-determination [15], its continued economic dependence on Denmark and external actors raises important questions about the extent to which this formal autonomy translates into substantive sovereignty. A central dilemma lies in balancing economic development with political autonomy. Greenland’s reliance on resource extraction (e.g., mining of critical minerals) creates opportunities for financial independence, yet also risks reinforcing new forms of dependency on global markets and external investors. This raises the question of whether economic pathways toward independence may simultaneously introduce new governance vulnerabilities.

Greenland’s evolving role in Arctic governance also formed the basis of a dedicated roundtable discussion held at the PECWS as part of the workshop “Arctic Foresight: Building Resilient Futures Through Indigenous Knowledge and Self-Determination”. Drawing on interdisciplinary and Indigenous perspectives, participants reflected on Greenland’s experience as both an inspiring and contested example of political resilience in the Arctic, engaging critically with its governance trajectory and identifying both its strengths and limitations. The discussion coalesced around three interrelated thematic lenses that inform the following analysis: first,) independence as a process rather than a fixed endpoint; second, the gap between representational inclusion and meaningful decision-making authority; and third, Greenland’s experience as an illustrative case that offers inspiration without prescribing a universally applicable model.

While this legislative milestone represents a landmark achievement, discussions during the workshop highlighted that independence should not be understood as a singular or final outcome, but rather as an ongoing and uneven process. Participants emphasized that political resilience depends not only on formal autonomy, but on the extent to which decision-making authority can be exercised without external validation from former colonial powers. In this sense, independence was framed less as an abstract goal and more as the practical ability to govern, decide, and implement policies according to Indigenous priorities.

A recurring concern raised during the workshop was the distinction between symbolic recognition and substantive power. This distinction reflects a broader structural issue: governance arrangements may formally acknowledge Indigenous leadership while maintaining decision-making authority within state or corporate frameworks. Participants cautioned against governance arrangements in which Indigenous institutions are acknowledged in principle but lack the authority to ensure that their decisions are implemented. Such arrangements risk reducing Indigenous governance bodies to representational roles that signal inclusivity without altering underlying power relations. From this perspective, meaningful self-determination requires governance structures in which Indigenous decision-making is not advisory but binding.

Workshop discussions also reflected on whether Greenland’s experience can or should be compared to that of other Indigenous communities in the Arctic and beyond. While Greenland was widely seen as a source of inspiration, participants stressed that its governance model cannot be treated as universally transferable. Historical trajectories, demographic composition, legal frameworks, and geopolitical contexts differ substantially across Arctic regions. Rather than serving as a blueprint, Greenland’s experience may be better understood as an illustrative case that highlights both the possibilities and limitations of Indigenous self-governance within state-based systems. This reinforces the need to avoid universalizing Arctic governance models and instead recognize the diversity of Indigenous political realities across regions. While these reflections do not represent a comprehensive or singular Indigenous perspective, they provide insight into how Greenland’s governance trajectory is being critically discussed within interdisciplinary and Indigenous-informed policy and research spaces.

There is a rising global interest in Greenland not only because of its critical minerals and shipping routes, but also because of its strategic geopolitical position. However, this increased geopolitical attention also risks marginalizing local priorities, as external actors may prioritize strategic and economic interests over Indigenous governance agendas. This creates a tension between global relevance and local self-determination. At the same time, this attention brings both opportunities and challenges, requiring Greenland to balance economic development with environmental sustainability, navigate growing geopolitical pressures from major powers, and safeguard the rights and priorities of Indigenous communities, upholding the principle of “Nothing about us without us” [16].

At the same time, this position gives Greenland a chance to lead. Its resource base positions it to contribute to the global green transition through the responsible extraction of critical minerals and renewable energy projects. Yet such development pathways must be carefully governed to avoid reproducing extractive models that conflict with Indigenous values and environmental sustainability. The territory can also foster new industries such as sustainable tourism and research partnerships, using these as platforms to advance Inuit interests in climate policy and place their perspectives at the center of Arctic governance [17,18]. Strengthening governance structures to ensure that Indigenous voices are central to decision-making will be essential for achieving long-term resilience. Scholars emphasize that such participation is not only a matter of justice but also improves the effectiveness of adaptation strategies by integrating local and scientific knowledge [19].

In many ways, Greenland’s experience underscores that resilience is not only about adapting to change but also about actively shaping it—offering valuable insights for other Arctic regions navigating autonomy and development amid rapid transformation. At the same time, it demonstrates that political resilience is inherently contested, requiring continuous negotiation between autonomy, economic realities, and geopolitical pressures. This case, therefore, contributes to broader debates by illustrating that Indigenous self-determination is not a linear process, but an ongoing and relational practice shaped by both internal priorities and external constraints. By embedding cultural priorities into policy, planning, and governance, Greenland demonstrates how sovereignty can serve as a foundation for a more resilient and equitable future both for its people and for the Arctic as a whole.

Conclusion

Resilience in the Arctic must be understood as rooted in Indigenous rights to self-determination. Indigenous-led governance, knowledge co-production, and political autonomy demonstrate how resilience extends beyond survival toward transformation and renewal. This essay has argued that political resilience is not simply a complementary dimension of Arctic governance, but a foundational one, shaping how power, knowledge, and decision-making are negotiated across scales. Whilst these routes are continuously challenged by existing power hierarchies and land-use interests, many of the evolving governance trajectories, such as in Greenland and the resistance exhibited in cases like Fosen, highlight the need for decolonial approaches. By foregrounding Indigenous perspectives and critically examining cases such as Greenland, the analysis highlights that resilience is not inherently equitable or transformative—it depends on the extent to which governance structures enable genuine authority, rather than symbolic participation. By positioning political resilience as a core dimension of Arctic futures, and as illustrated through evolving governance trajectories in Greenland, this article underscores the necessity of decolonial approaches to resilience that enable Arctic governance to evolve toward culturally grounded and sustainable futures for both Indigenous communities and the broader global environment. At the same time, the discussion reveals that processes of self-determination are neither linear nor uniform. They are shaped by ongoing tensions between autonomy and dependency, local priorities and global pressures, and recognition and implementation. These tensions underscore that political resilience is not a fixed outcome, but a continuous and contested process.

This contribution adds to current academic debates by positioning Indigenous self-determination as central to understanding resilience, while also emphasizing the need to critically interrogate how resilience is operationalized within existing governance systems. Future research should further explore how Indigenous governance models can be supported without being instrumentalized, how co-production practices can move beyond institutional constraints, and how Arctic governance frameworks can better accommodate plural knowledge systems while ensuring equitable power distribution. Addressing these questions will be essential for advancing more just, inclusive, and sustainable Arctic futures in the face of accelerating environmental and geopolitical change.

Acknowledgments

This paper was fundamentally shaped by the participants of the workshop “Arctic Foresight: Building Resilient Futures Through Indigenous Knowledge and Self-Determination” at the Polar Early Career World Summit (PECWS). We extend our deepest gratitude to the contributors whose insights during the breakout sessions provided the empirical and conceptual basis for this work. This publication seeks to honor their commitment to decolonial co-production and the advancement of Indigenous agency in Arctic governance.