Conclusion: The Political Choices of Sub-state Actors and the Politics Surrounding U.S. Military Bases

  • Minori TakahashiEmail author
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)


The goal of this chapter is to integrate and sum up the discussions from previous chapters and thus offer new insights regarding the role of sub-state actors in the field of security by focusing on the following three correlations:
  1. 1.

    We theoretically extrapolate how the policy choices of subnational actors affect the interaction between the US politics regarding its overseas military bases and the polities of the countries hosting them (The correlation between vulnerability and hold-up);

  2. 2.

    We shed light on how the local voice manifests itself and how it functions in various political matters concerning US overseas military bases at the level of national security by examining the cases of Greenland, Okinawa and Olongapo (The correlation between autonomy and military bases), and

  3. 3.

    We evaluate the relationship between the emergence of Cold-War-like power relations in the post-Cold War period, which are visible in the current Arctic security environment, and sub-state actors (The methodological correlation between deduction and induction).



  1. Archer, C. 2003. Greenland, US bases and missile defense: New two-level negotiations? Cooperation and Conflict 38 (2): 136–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duke, S. 1989. United States military forces and installations in Europe. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Heininen, L. et al. 2014. Security and sovereignty in the North Atlantic. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Henriksen, A. et al. 2017. The Greenland card: Prospects for and barriers to Danish Arctic diplomacy in Washington. In Danish foreign policy yearbook, 75–98. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Kawana, S. 2012. Kichi no Seijigaku: Sengo-Beikoku no Kaigaikichikakudaiseisaku no Kigen [Base politics: The origins of the United States’ post-war overseas bases expansion policy]. Tokyo: Hakuto-Shobo.Google Scholar
  6. Kristensen, K. et al. 2018. Greenland and the international politics of a changing Arctic: Postcolonial paradiplomacy between high and low politics. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Maedomari, H. 2015. Anpo womeguru nihon to okinawa no soukoku. Okinawa gatou nihon no anzenhosyou [Conflict regarding security between Japan and Okinawa. In Series on Japan’s national security, No.4: Okinawa questioning Japan’s national security]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
  8. Petersen, N. 1981. The Alliance policies of the smaller NATO countries. In NATO after thirty years, 83–106. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1982. Britain, Scandinavia, and the North Atlantic treaty 1948-49. Review of International Studies 8 (4): 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 1998. Negotiating the 1951 Greenland defense agreement: Theoretical and empirical aspects. Scandinavian Political Studies 21 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pratt, M. 2010. The Scholar-Practitioner Interface in Boundary Studies. Eurasia Border Review. Vol. 1 (1). Sapporo: Global COE Program “Reshaping Japan’s Border Studies” Slavic Research Center at Hokkaido University: 33.Google Scholar
  12. Taagholt, J. et al. 2001. Greenland: Security perspectives (trans: Lufkin, D.). Fairbanks: Arctic Research Consortium of the United States.Google Scholar
  13. Yara, T. et al. 2016. Okinawa to kaiheitai: Cyuuryuu no rekishitekitenkai [Okinawa and the U.S. marine corps: The historical development of stationing]. Tokyo: Junposha.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Slavic-Eurasian Research Center and Arctic Research CenterHokkaido UniversityHokkaidoJapan

Personalised recommendations