Return to Contents
The Jersey Law Review – October 2006
SHORTER ARTICLES AND NOTES
THE RIGHT TO BE SMALL AND DIFFERENT - ÅLAND AND THE EU
Martin Ekman
1 The Åland Islands (Å being pronounced as “aw” in “law”) constitute a small self-governing group of islands in the middle of the Baltic Sea, between Sweden and Finland. The 25,000 people living on Åland have an identity of their own and a will to form their own small-scale democratic archipelago society, based on their special conditions. Although a small-scale society, Åland also has international connections; it has a world-wide shipping industry. Åland is an example of a community that is neither an independent state nor an ordinary region of another state, but one which enjoys a special status for particular geographical, historical and cultural reasons. In this way it is quite similar to Jersey or Guernsey in the Bay of Normandy, or the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea, or the Faeroes in the North Atlantic.
2 However, two things make Åland different from the other small autonomous islands: Åland has a special status according to international law, and Åland is a kind of member of the European Union (EU). The “membership” of the EU has turned out to be a steadily growing problem, conflicting with the very nature of Åland’s status according to international law. This gave rise to news articles in the Daily Telegraph earlier this year and deserves a fundamental discussion, including a brief historical background to the situation.
Demilitarization and autonomy
3 The special status of Åland goes back to the year 1856. Åland, originally a part of Sweden, had, together with Finland, been ceded to Russia half a century earlier. In the Crimean war between the United Kingdom and France on one side and Russia on the other, British and French forces attacked the huge Russian fortress Bomarsund that had recently been erected on Åland. The fortress was blown up, and in the Treaty of Paris (1856) the three powers agreed on a specific convention which turned Åland into a demilitarized territory. After the first world war an extended convention on the demilitarization of Åland was adopted on the initiative of the newly founded League of Nations in 1921.
4 At that time, following Finland’s independence from Russia, the Ålanders wanted a reunion with Sweden. In a referendum arranged by the Ålanders close to 95% voted for a reunion. Finland’s response was to propose partial autonomy for Åland, to some extent modelled on that of the Isle of Man, and to state that in the long run the autonomy would become as complete as possible without making Åland a fully independent state. However, the Ålanders refused, and finally the whole matter was brought before the League of Nations. In 1921 the League decided that Åland should belong to Finland but be both autonomous and demilitarized, with its autonomy strengthened in accordance with the Finnish proposal. Since then Åland’s autonomy has been gradually increased, particularly in 1951 and in 1991, with extended rights for Åland to enact its own legislation.
5 The autonomous status of Jersey and Guernsey of course has a completely different history, as is also the case with the Isle of Man and the Faeroes. However, all these autonomous islands, including Åland, have one thing in common: their degrees of autonomy have been systematically increased during the past century. This has led to improved democracy, with the distinctive character of each island society being developed and preserved.
Strength and fragility
6 The Åland autonomy today is both strong and fragile. Åland’s fundamental strength is its status according to international law, based on the above-mentioned decision of the League of Nations. More specifically its strength is to be found in the nature of its constitutional autonomy. This gives the right to Åland not only to make its own laws within a large number of fields, but also the right to maintain this privilege. This is secured by the fact that the constitution cannot be amended by Finland without the consent of Åland itself. Thus Åland has the power to control its own destiny.
7 When Finland sought to join the EU the question of what to do with Åland came up. According to the constitution, Finland cannot enter into an international agreement affecting Åland without Åland’s consent. In the end Åland was associated with the EU according to the so-called Åland protocol of 1994. According to this protocol, specifically founded on “the special status that the Åland Islands enjoy under international law”, Åland in a few important instances (mainly indirect taxation and real property rights) remains outside the union. Based on this protocol, and after both Sweden and Finland had joined the EU, Åland decided to join too, partly because of concern as to the consequences of being left outside the customs union. This association with the EU has, however, put Åland’s autonomy under heavy pressure in a way that neither the League of Nations nor the Ålanders had anticipated.
8 The constitutional position of Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man and the Faeroes may be described as strong where that of Åland is fragile, and fragile where that of Åland is strong. These Islands do not have the status according to international law that Åland has, but they do have a much more independent status in relation to the EU.
Threats and possibilities
9 Now, what is the problem with the autonomy of Åland in relation to the EU? The main point is that Åland’s special status is unique within the EU. The EU has obvious difficulties in handling this and tries to avoid the problem by pretending that is does not exist. In practice the problems are of two kinds: the first is related to the special status of Åland, and the second has to do with the smallness of Åland.
10 First, Åland has its own parliament, the Landsting, which is not subordinate to the Finnish one but is a separate parliament of equal status. However, the EU only recognizes independent states and, therefore, pretends that the Åland parliament does not exist. This has caused many difficulties and conflicts concerning legislation about fishing, sea birds, moist snuff etc. New conflicts constantly appear. In addition there is a language problem. Åland’s official language is Swedish, while EU matters, that have to go through Finland, are often hurried and handled in Finnish only, contrary to constitutional requirements.
11 Secondy, Åland is tiny and is seeking solutions suitable for a small archipelago society in the Baltic Sea, while the EU is huge and is aiming at uniform solutions for the whole of Europe. Typical problems occur in the context of small-scale and environmentally friendly farming, with future problems threatening to appear in relation to small-scale banking, day nurseries and so on.
12 Obviously vital parts of Åland’s special autonomy and small-scale culture are simply not compatible with the EU in its present form; indeed they are contradictory to developments within the EU.
13 Independent states that are members of the EU cede some of their powers to this organization while in return getting some influence via the Commission, the Council of Ministers and other European institutions. Small territories, on the other hand, cannot possibly be given the same influence as such states, but nor can they then cede their powers to the EU in the same way. The solution to this dilemma must be that such territories are treated in a special way, giving them a more independent position in relation to the EU. This has been done with Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man and the Faeroes. It is now essential that the relations between Åland and the EU are considerably changed in the same direction, in order to safeguard the intentions behind Åland’s special status according to international law. One may note here that in the formalized cooperation between the Nordic countries, Åland, as well as the Faeroes and Greenland, have all been given a much stronger position and the option of going their own way.
A wider perspective
14 The special status of Åland has attracted a lot of attention from other small nations, especially in eastern Europe and Asia. It is sometimes referred to as the “Åland example”. Due to foreign demand, the constitution of Åland is now available in eight different languages. The interesting point is that the Åland example allows for a separate identity and permits a considerable freedom for a small nation with a special history and culture, without introducing full independence. This solution is in the interests of both the smaller part, being afraid of losing its identity, and of the mother country, being afraid of losing territory to a new independent state. Hence such a solution is also contributing to peace.
15 Because of these fundamental problems with the EU, the valuable Åland example of peaceful conflict resolution now runs the risk of losing its credibility. How is a small nation in conflict with its mother country able to trust, in the long run, in a situation of limited autonomy instead of independence? Even if the autonomy could be fully guaranteed in relation to the mother country, it might in future be manipulated through strange processes in supranational organizations like the EU. In order to safeguard the future of the Åland example it is necessary that Åland, with its roots in the League of Nations, is given a considerably more independent status in relation to the EU. It would also be an advantage if autonomous small states like Åland, Jersey and Guernsey had some kind of format recognition from the United Nations.
16 In the end it all comes down to a most essential but often forgotten right: the right to be small and different. To respect the right to be small and different is to promote peace, democracy, and cultural diversity on our Earth!
Martin Ekman is an associate professor and a freelance lecturer at the Åland Maritime Institute; he is an expert on Åland’s maritime borders according to international law.
Return to Contents