Report of Denmark

An overview article about the Danish Place-Name Commission and its functions in society.

In Denmark, location is a recognized gateway to eGovernment and public administration. The National Survey and Cadastre (KMS) participates in a range of public partnerships that work towards the generation of more effective public services. Recent developments in Denmark's public sector have placed new demands on KMS. The 2007 structural reform, in which Denmark's internal administrative boundaries were largely redrawn, has required the development of new cross-boundary solutions. This includes the sharing and merging of geographic information, which local and governmental authorities use in their administrative activities. Geodata are generated and maintained based on standardized, coordinated and cost-effective procedures. This yields a unique spatial data infrastructure for eGovernment and public administration in general. KMS is responsible for establishing national standards for the generation, storage and sharing of geodata. As Denmark's responsible authority for the implementation of the European directive INSPIRE, KMS has acquired new international obligations. This has required KMS to address the standardization of geodata as both a national and European activity. KMS' activities include the establishment and maintenance of the following geodata types:

by the Great Powers in 1814 was that of a semi-core in an empire. The premise on which this article is based is that Denmark and Norway were both polities, with a polity being a social unit that has 'a distinct identity; a capacity to mobilize persons, that is for value satisfaction; and a degree of institutionalization and hierarchy (leaders and constituents)' (Ferguson and Mansbach 1996: 34). The first step in this analysis is to demonstrate that, although the term itself was not in use, the unfolding meanings of empire in early modern Europe applied to Denmark: It participated fully in the European global expansion in the first colonial period, and retained (and retains) an empire around its core area. Hence, Denmark was an empire in a conceptual sense. The second step is to apply the analytical literature on empire to Denmark and to demonstrate that, in an analytical sense as well, Denmark was indeed an empire. Having established what kind of polity Denmark was, the third step is to determine the status of the Norwegian polity within it. We draw once again on the analytical literature on empire, whose starting point is that empires consist of a core, as well as of a number of peripheries whose closeness to the core varies. Analytically, the question of Norway's place within the empire presents itself as a question of closeness to the core. It is immediately clear that Norway was much closer to the core than a formal colony like the Danish West Indies or an informal one like Greenland. It is also clear that Norway was drawn closer and closer to the imperial centre throughout the eighteenth century. Indeed, it is harder to imagine a part of an empire being closer to an imperial core than Norway was to Copenhagen. Drawing on previous work by Andersen, we therefore conclude by suggesting the term semi-core to account for Norway's place within the Danish empire. Conceptual Empire 1 1 1 This article hails from the project 'Manning the State', financed by the Norwegian Research Council. We should like to thank the other participants, Rebecca Adler-Nissen, Halvard Leira and Ann Towns, for their input. We also thank Elettra Carboni, Ruth Hemstad and our reviewers for comments. All translations from Scandinavian languages are our own.

Det drejer sig om 8, 2004

This is the English language folder for my work place, Name Research Section, then the Institute of Name Research. The folder provides a fine description of the Section for Name Research.

Greenland was used by the US as a platform and as an extended arm within its security and foreign policy during the World War II and the cold war. After this things changed, although Greenland remained important in Danish-US relations under the umbrella of NATO. Nowadays, the geostrategic position of Greenland between North America and Europe is gaining fresh prominence in the race for natural resources in the Arctic. Many issues arise from the prospective opening of the Arctic, all of which may have fateful impacts on future development in the region. Climate change, claims related to the extension of the continental shelf, exploitation and exploration of natural resources, together with the protection of indigenous peoples are all current issues that must be taken into consideration in the context of security and foreign policy formation in Greenland. The future of the Thule Air Base is also relevant. This article reviews developments from the World War II to the present regarding international relations from a Greenlandic perspective. As a self-governing sub-national territory within the realm of Denmark, Greenland does not have the ultimate decision-making power within foreign and security policy. The new Self-Government Act of 2009, however, gives Greenland some room for manoeuvre in this respect.