Third Theme 157

Does history work? Nor Euregio on the EU- border the rn Dim ensi Gleb Yarovoy

Ph.D. candidate ons Petrozavodsk State University , Po Russia lic ies , St rat

Abstract nities’, loosely integrated ‘cross-border regions’) by a egi

higher level of integration in diff erent spheres, ranging es The main idea of the presentation is to present common from economic to political. As mentioned above, eu- and historical and cultural heritage as the basis for further roregions have rather developed institutional structure, co-operation development in an institutionalized en- not only a common permanent secretariat, but other Pr decision making and executive bodies, such as Execu- tity (Euregio Karelia) as one of the perspective types ogramm of sub-national integration. The fi rst task is to describe tive Commi ee, joint Working Groups, in some cases historical (and cultural) background of the institution- even Parliamentary Assembly etc. In most cases eurore- alization of Karelian-Finnish cross-border co-operation gions consist of subnational political-administrative in the form of Euregio Karelia (e.g. common history units, such as regions and local communities. Diff erent es (including the Soviet era co-operation), cultural back- euroregions have diff erent aims and objectives, yet the ground (e.g. Kalevala), interface minorities with their common feature is striving for raising the intensity of common traditions, language, religion etc.). Then I turn co-operation and widening and deepening the degree to the political forecast of the institutional development of integration. of Euregio Karelia on the basis of the main integration theories’ (transactionalism, functionalism and neofunc- The fi rst Euroregion, the EUREGIO, was established in tionalism) adaptation to the sub-national level. The 1958 on the Dutch-German border, in the area of Ensch- 2 core (hypo)thesis is that Euregio Karelia was created ede (NL) and Gronau (DE). Since then, Euroregions and as a “security community” (Deutsch), but should turn other forms of cross-border co-operation have emerged to the functional (Mitrany/Haas) model of trans-fron- throughout Europe. At present more than one hundred tier regional integration (as it occurred in many cases in cross-border regions exist in Europe, and no less than Western and Eastern Europe) by means of the potentials fi V y per cent are euroregions of diff erent kinds. of the above-mentioned common historical and cultural Needless to say in diff erent parts of Europe the eurore- background. gional networks developed and are still developing with varied speed and success. In general, Southern Introduction Europe is less ‘euroregionalised’ than Western, Central and Eastern Europe, which have shown a higher level Euroregions are integrated sub-national cross-border of euroregional density along state borders in recent structures with a political decision-making tier, based years. At the same time, the system of CBC in the Nor- on some type of legal arrangement, having a common dic Countries is even more developed and institutional- permanent secretariat, and commanding their own re- ised due to the long cooperation traditions. sources. The co-operation is based on a long-term devel- 1 opment strategy and is pursued in all ‘realms of life’. Euroregions in the In this respect it is essential to mention that euroregions Northern Europe. (also called ‘euregios’, e.g. Euregio ‘Karelia’ or ‘regional councils’, e.g. the North Calo e Council) constitute a The modern history of CBC in the European North is special type of cross-border co-operation (CBC), which rather long; it dates back to the late 1950’s in the Nordic diff ers from other types of CBC (e.g. ‘working commu- countries and between Nordic and Western European 158 Third Theme

Map 1. Traditional Nordic CBRs.* Map 2. Changes in the ‘traditional’ system.*

countries. The fi rst offi cial cross-border contacts were established in the late 1950’s in the Öresund region (DK/ by including some new CBR and re-organizing the old SE), but the fi rst institutionalized cross-border region ones. These new CBR’s, some of which are as highly in- (CBR) was the North Calo e (FI/NO/SE), established in tegrated as traditional euroregions, are substantially de- 1967. The system of CBC in Norden was fi nally formed pendent on the EU fi n ancial support, thus, loosing their in the early 1980’s. Thus, in 1981 the last Nordic CBR, ability to self-defi ne the objectives and strategy of co-op- the West Nordic Region (Faroe/Iceland/Greenland) eration. This led some students of the Nordic CBC to the was established. And then, until the end of the Cold conclusion that the EU activities in this fi e ld have more War, this system remained stable (it consists of eight destructive than positive consequences for the develop- 4 regions, namely Öresund, North Calo e, Kvarken, Mid ment of CBC network. Nordic, ARKO, Archipelago, Østfold – Bohuslän, West Nordic Region). This system could be called ‘a tradi- On map 2 several ‘external’ CBR’s are depicted. By ‘exter- tional system of trans-frontier cooperation in the Nordic nal’ euroregions I mean those created along the external countries’. This system was rather unique, developing border of the EU/NC, i.e. on the Finnish-Russian state independently from Western European regionalisation border mostly, with the possible participation of subna- processes in the framework of Nordic co-operation and tional units from other Nordic countries. AV er the end integration. All of the above mentioned euroregions be- of the Cold War, several ‘external’ cross-border regions came institutional, as well as obtained limited fi nancial were created. The fi rst one was the BEAR (the Barents support from the Nordic Council and the Nordic Coun- Euro-Arctic Region, referred to as ‘Nord’ on the map), cil of Ministers, but the initiative to co-operate and di- established in 1992; Euregio “Baltic” (not on the map) mensions of co-operation and integrations belonged to was formed in 1995; then a CBR between and subnational authorities/administrations. the Leningrad region (‘South-East Finland’ on the map) followed; and fi nally Euregio “Karelia” (‘Karelia’ on a AV er the 1995 EU enlargement to and Finland, map) was created in the year 2000. The la er is the area some new CBR’s appeared, acting under the Community formed by three Regional councils of Finland - Kainuu, Initiative Interreg, aiming at the promotion of cross-bor- Northern Karelia and Northern Ostrobothnia, and the der, inter-regional and trans-national co-operation in of the Russian Federation. Europe. The existing ‘traditional’ system was changed Third Theme 159 Nor Historical Background cial and political systems of the autonomous Duchy and

the empire until the 1880s, when the violent autocratic the of Euregio ‘Karelia’ policy of russifi cation caused a deep crisis of Finnish-

10 rn Russian relations. In the 20th century this policy turns

Euregio ‘Karelia’ (EK) as a historical-geographical re- into the escalation of mutual territorial claims, wars and Dim gion is a large fragment of the historical area of Karelia/ interventions, repatriation of population. The border be- 5 Kirjalaland, the place of residence and cultural activity came a wide zone of alienation of states and nations. ensi of Karelian ethnos during the Middle Ages. Since the , once an important part of the histori- The same policy fostered anti-russian a itudes in the ons cal Karelia is nowadays a part of the Leningrad region

community and the authorities of the independent , Po and thus is not included into the EK, the la er can not be Finland, which lead to the policy of strengthening the 11 regarded as an integral historical area. Finnish identity in the border areas. Later, the diff er- lic

ence in social order (Finland was a capitalist country, ies At the same time, trade contacts on the territory of the

the was a communist state) provoked sev- , St present-day EK had been actively developing long be- eral armed confl icts which resulted in the fore Finland was ceded to the (1809). and the , when Finland participated rat Karelian, Finnish and Russian (Pomor) people were in the second World War on nationalist Germany’s side egi engaged in trade over the whole distance from Ostro- against the Soviet Union. Nationalistic views on eastern bo nia to Novgorod, and the peak of commercial re- es 6 (Russian) , who dominated the Finnish society,

th th and lations was reached in the 17 – 18 centuries. This is represented the former as a part of the Finnish nation, the fi rst historical precondition of further co-operation,

and induced the government to the military seizure of Pr 12 which lead the Executive director of Regional Council Russian Karelia (in Soviet historiography this military ogramm of Northern Karelia T. Cronberg to a conclusion about expedition is known under the title “Karelian venture”). institutionalisation of historical space through the crea- 7 On the other hand, the Soviet government intended to tion of the euroregion. a ach violently the whole Finland to the USSR; in 1940

the ‘puppet government abroad’ was set up with this in- es This euroregional space has its own political/-military tent kept in view. Thus, the EK area was of a great geo- history, concerned with the centuries-old rivalry be- political importance for both countries. tween Sweden and Russia for the possession of the terri- tory of historical Karelia. AV er 1329 (the peace of Note- AV er the second World War and the Paris Treaty of 1947 borg) Karelia was divided several times, state affi liation (the treaty gave to the Soviet Union most of the Karelian was changing frequently, the ethnic mix of the border Isthmus, the Petsamo region and the right to 50-year ex- area population changed twice (in the 17th century or- ploitation of the Porkkala base; it also reaffi rmed the de- thodox Russians were replaced by Finns, and in 1940, militarization of the Aland Islands and the limits on the 13 aV er the repatriation of the Finnish population, Russians Finnish military set in the armistice ) the Soviet gov- and Byelorussians were rese led). However it is hardly ernment forced Finland to sign the Treaty of Friendship, possible to associate the EK area with administrative sys- Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. The subsequent tem of Sweden or Russia until the beginning of the 19th Finnish diplomacy (‘Paasikivi-Kekkonen tack’) towards century. AV er 1809, when Finland was ceded to Russia the Soviet Union during the Cold War era got the title and became a Grand Duchy, the EK area became a part ‘fi nlandisation’. Historians debate on the context, sub- of Russian administrative-territorial system, which re- stance and consequences of this policy. In order to avoid sulted in the intensifi cation of trans-frontier relations be- in-depth examination of the subject it is important to tween Finnish and Russian provinces. Some researchers note that to the end of the Cold War Finland became a maintain that trade contacts fl ourished until the end of prosperous country, a welfare state. the First World War, since the Grand Duchy was forced to increase its trade with the East as all the other land The next stage of bilateral relations started aV er the col- 8 entries and gateways of Finland were closed. lapse of the Soviet Union. For Finland this had a twofold eff ect. On the one hand, Finnish economy suff ered from Russian market played an important part in the econom- a deep crisis, caused by the drastic reduction in trade re- ic development of Finland since Russia held 30-50% of 9 lations and turnover with the Soviet Union/Russian Fed- the Finnish trade turnovers. Common banking system, eration. On the other, a new format of co-operation was common transport communications and labour mar- established. An important part of this was the ‘Agree- ket, connecting Ladoga’s Karelia with Saint-Petersburg, ment between the Government of Russia and the Gov- promoted the incorporation of the Grand Duchy to the ernment of Finland on co-operation in the Murmansk structure of the Russian Empire, encouraged economic region, the Republic of Karelia, the Saint-Petersburg co-operation and supported peaceful co-existence of so- 160 Third Theme

15 and Leningrad region’ signed in Helsinki in the very eration in economic and political spheres. The similar beginning of the year 1992. The agreement is aimed at aims are set forth clearly not only in the offi cial agree- 16 the development of cross-border regional co-operation ment on the Euroregion, but also in the speeches of 17 18 alongside the Finnish-Russian state border; in its pre- regional politicians and academic articles as well. amble the two sides agreed that “the tradition of good neighbourhood and confi dence between the two na- Why is the EK able to be a SC? On one hand, the nega- tions” exists. The Group on co-operation development tive factors such as the legacy of wars, including the in neighbouring regions was created. An important Cold War, exist in the common ‘euroregional’ history. impetus for the promotion of CBC was the rather high On the other, there are many positive factors such as a level of the independence of Russian regions vis-à-vis good will to stand against the legacy of misunderstand- the central government during the 1990s. As a conse- ings, using the heritage of common history and com- quence, as mentioned above, several CBRs were created mon culture as well. during the last decade of the 20th century. Here, a presence of interface minority(ies) should be In 1995 Finland joined the European Union, which meant taken into consideration. A considerable part of the new possibilities of CBC development with the help of population of Russian Karelia is of Finno-Ugric origin, the instruments of the Commission, i.e. the Community such as Karelians (10% of population), Finns (2,3% of 19 Initiative Interreg, Tacis CBC program etc. In many re- population) and Vepps (0,8% of the population). A di- spects Finland launched the Northern Dimension (ND) aspora of Russian Finns (Ingrians) dwells in Southern initiative in the late 1990s in order to use these oppor- and Eastern Finland . Ethnic Finns from the former So- tunities. One of the main aims was to promote and de- viet Union now constitute the greatest part of Finland’s 20 velop the cross-border and inter-regional co-operation foreign population. Moreover the number of Russian- in Northern Europe from Iceland to the North-West of speaking emigrants to Finland is rising permanently Russia. Since the idea of the ND was rather loose, it was and could reach the fi gure of 50 000 – 135 000 up to the 21 essential to fi ll it with concrete content. Creation of the year 2013. EK in the year 2000 served as one of the components of the realisation of the ND Action Plan. Consequently there is a common ground, such as lan- guage question. Keeping in mind the perspectives of Euregio ‘Karelia’ as cross-border co-operation between Finland and Kare- lia, one can observe that language could be an impetus a Security Community. to co-operation. At least, there is a need to support the language(s) of the title nation of Karelia, Karelian and It is important to note that there are two main precondi- Finnish, as well as Vepps. It is especially important on tions for the creation of the EK. The fi rst one is ‘panto- the account of the role of worldwide well-known Finn- historical’, i.e. the long history of (all types of) relations ish and Karelian Epos “Kalevala”, which is an integral between Finland and the Russian Empire/the USSR/the part of the common cultural heritage. One can mention Russian Federation. The second is ‘concrete historical’, other issues that are essential for mutual understanding i.e. the state of Finnish-Russian co-operation on the sub- and co-operation and creation of the euroregion in the national level in the context of the multilevel co-opera- form of security community, such as similar environ- tion in the North at the end of the 20th century (e.g. the mental conditions. ND initiative). The fi rst factor supposes taking into con- sideration the whole range of complex relations in the Then, the question arises as to whether security commu- course of history when defi ning the framework and pri- nity type is suffi cient for the development of dynamic orities of co-operation while the second one calls upon co-operation between Russian Karelia and Finland? My use of the (fi nancial) possibilities of the EU to improve answer to that is negative: SC-type is not suffi cient. the functional co-operation. In practice the la er consti- tutes the shape of the EK while the former is charged Future of the EK: with content. It means that the EK was created in or- Something More than a SC. der to build, according to Karl Deutsch, a (pluralistic) security community (SC), which is characterised by the Why should the co-operation in the EK be more inten- absence of expectations of warfare or any serious ten- 14 sive than the one within a security community? Let sion, and on the contrary, by growing societal transac- us review diff erent theories of integration, e.g. trans- tions. Deutsch’s theory of transactionalism referred to actionalism, functionalism and neofunctionalism. In the restoration of confi dence between the two nations Deutsch’s theory of transactionalism the ultimate goal as the main requirement for further successful co-op- of integration is not a SC (the same is true for Mitrany’s Third Theme 161 Nor functionalism). Security community can only be the The second diff erence concerns the terms co-operation

fi r st step towards further development of co-operation and integration. Here I refer to the term integration as the into integration. the one denoting a greater degree of interaction than co-operation. It is reasonable to use here the typology rn

Thus, the next stage in our case should be something of stages in transfrontier relations, proposed by one of Dim that one calls institutionalisation of the EK meaning, the main European institutions promoting trans-fron- that in the Development strategy for the EK more a en- tier co-operation, i.e. the Council of Europe (CoE). In ensi tion should be paid to functional co-operation. Accord- its Handbook on trans-frontier co-operation the fi ve stages ons ing to David Mitrany, social trust (Deutsch’s security are mentioned: 1) total lack of relations, 2) the informa-

community in a narrow sense) in the region is the fi rst tion exchange stage, 3) co-operation, 4) harmonisation, , Po 24 step towards functional co-operation and then to func- and 5) integration. In this handbook the term “to co- 22 tional integration. Basing upon the theory of function- operate” means to fi nd joint solutions that “are the only lic alism, neofunctionalists Ernst Haas and Leon Lindberg eff ective response when communities and populations ies

stated that economic and political integration follows on each side of a frontier are facing similar problems”. , St .23 functional co-operation The stage of harmonisation refers to “a whole fabric of rat mutual understanding”, which should become a real

Extending the core ideas of the above mentioned theo- nexus of the future integration in the sphere of CBC. egi ries of integration to the case of the EK and its main

The last stage, integration, means the existence and im- es goals – to bring the conditions of life and economic de- plementation of the integrated regional development and velopment of Russian Karelia closer to the Finnish (Eu- programmes, thus it is the “ultimate stage of transfron- ropean) standards, to promote regional competency in tier socio-economic co-operation”. According to the Pr the era of globalization – it is logical to think about the CoE, the last two stages have not been reached by Eu- ogramm creation of a politically institutionalised and economi- ropean cross-border regions. One can hardly agree with cally integrated euroregion. For this type of relations I the last statement, which is very disputable in the case use the notion of trans-frontier regional integration. of the ‘internal’ (situated alongside the borders of the

EU member-states) euroregions, which are the agents of es There are two main diff erences between cross-border the EU regional policy, especially in the context of Inter- co-operation and trans-frontier regional integration. 25 reg programmes. However it is true for the ‘external’ The fi rst one refers to the notion of border/frontier. The euroregions: there are many problems not only with the term border as used here can be defi ned as a more or less integration of development programmes at local or re- neutral phenomenon, as a result of political processes, gional levels, or with the harmonization of policies with based on the national interest, and, thus, artifi cial. Fron- cross-border eff ect, but also with co-operation in fi nding tier in its turn could be defi ned through the concept of joint solutions for a trans-frontier problem/issue. In the frontier space, which aff ects everything that penetrates case of the EU-Russian euroregions it is especially true it. It concerns the interpenetration of the interests of dif- since the last decade saw li le progress in harmonis- ferent actors and their mutual infl uence. ing policies at national/supranational level and fi nding

Actor Instrument of CBC Effect on CBC Regional Policy Funding, the EU European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument de- & re-territorialisation Neighbourhood Programs Securing, Russia CBC Concept and Federal Laws re-territorialisation27 Funding, Finland Strategy for Cooperation in the Neighbouring Areas de- & re-territorialisation the Republic Co-operation, of Karelia Programme ‘Our Common Border’ Finnish de-territorialisation, Neighbourhood Programme ‘Euregio Karelia’ Regional Harmonisation/Integration ? Administrations

Table. 1. Different actors’ strategies 162 Third Theme

the common denominator in the fi eld of cross-border mentioned in diff erent joint development programmes co-operation. At the same time there is understanding and projects: forestry, timber processing industry, and even consensus concerning future development of woodworking industry, stone-working industry, tour- CBC and a need for promoting the trans-frontier har- ism, and, as V. Shlyaminac* mentioned, transport infra- 28 monisation/integration. Using the concept of Finnish structure (see Map 3). researcher A. Paasi, regional authorities vote for de-ter- 26 ritorialisation of the Finnish-Russian border, but their Notes national/supranational colleagues usually make li le eff ort to help them. For this article it is suffi cient to men- 1 Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) (1998). Institutional tion some instruments and to summarise the CBC strat- Aspects of Cross-border Co-operation. Gronau: AEBR. p. 14. 2 Perkmann M. (1999). The rise of the Euroregion. A bird’s eye perspective on egies of diff erent actors in a table in a sketchy way. European cross-border co-operation. At: h p://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/ papers/Perkmann-Rise-of-Euroregion.pdf Conclusion 3 See for example a map of euroregions, published by the AEBR at: www. aebr.net 4 See: Mariussen Å. (2002). “Sustainable fragmentation: regional organizations As shown above, there is a dissonance in CBC strategies in the North”. In: The NEBI Yearbook 2001-2002: North European and across the Finnish-Russian border. Nevertheless Eure- Integration. Ed. by Hedegaard L., Lindström B. Berlin – Heidelberg, 2002. p. 213-230. gio ‘Karelia’ has a potential to make a step forward in * Both maps’ source: www.nordregio.se cross-border co-operation. Even today one can consider 5 N. Korablev et al. (2001.) History of Karelia since Ancient Times to Our Time. the EK as a security community with a rather high level [Istoria Karelii s drevneishih vremen do nashih dnei]. Petrozavodsk: Petrsu. of institutionalisation of relations. At the same time, P. 62. 6 Heininen L., Cronberg T. (2001). Europe Making in Action. Euregio Karelia and especially if some visible eff orts are made to promote the Construction of EU-Russian Partnership. At: h p://students.soros.karelia. CBC at Russian national level, ‘Karelia’ will evolve into ru:82/~goloubev/enorth/tarja.htm a ‘functional’ euroregion, so that the relations will rise 7 Cronberg T. (2003). “Euregio Karelia: In search of a relevant space for action”. In: The NEBI Yearbook 2003. North European and Baltic Sea Integration. Ed. by up to the level of trans-frontier regional integration. Hedegaard L., Lindström B. Berlin: Springer-VerlagVela. p. 226. This does not mean total integration in the terminol- 8 Bazegski D.(1999). Historical contacts between Finland and the Karelian Republic ogy of the CoE handbook, but rather that in diff erent from past to present // Crossing Borders in the Northern Dimension. Oulu, 1999. 9 Finland [Finlyandiya](1973). In: The Soviet Historical Encyclopedia [Sovetskaya branches of regional economy many cross-border solu- istoricheskaya entsyclopediya] . Vol. 14. Moscow, 1973. p. 165. tions can be found in order to integrate them into joint 10 See: Suni L.V. (1982). Autocracy and social and political development of Finland development strategies. In the case of Euregio ‘Karelia’ in 80’s – 90’s of the 19th century [Samoderzhavie i obschestvenno-politicheskoe these could be, at least, the following ones, which are razvitie Finlyandii v 80-90-e gody XIX veka]. Leningrad: Nauka.

Map 3. Euregio ‘Karelia’ as a part of the Northern East-West Freight Corridor.* Third Theme 163

11 Cronberg, 2003: 225. Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Nor 12 See: Khesin S.S. (1949). Defeat of the White-Finns’ Venture in Karelia in 1921- 24 Council of Europe (2000). Handbook on transfronier co-operation for local and

1922. [Razgrom belofi nskoi avantyury v Karelii v 1921-1922 godah]. Moscow: regional authorities in Europe. – Strasbourg: Council of Europe publishing. p. the Nauka. 33.

13 Allison R. (1985). Finland’s Relations with the Soviet Union, 1944-84. New 25 See: Perkmann M. (2003). “Cross-border regions in Europe. Signifi cance rn York: St Martin’s. p. 14-15. and drivers of regional cross-border co-operation”. European Urban and Dim 14 Deutsch K.W. et al. (1957). Political Community and the North-Atlantic Regional Studies. Vol. 10. № 2. p. 153–171. Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton: 26 Shortly saying, de-territorialisation means a border becomes soV er, looses Princeton University. p. 5. its barrier functions and terns into a frontier. See: Paasi A. (1999) The Finnish- ensi 15 See: Deutsch K.W. (1979). “Toward Western European integration: an Russian Border in a World of De-territorialisation. In: The NEBI Yearbook 1999.

interim assessment in 1962”. In: Deutsch K.W. Tides among nations. New York: North European and Baltic Sea Integration. Ed. by Hedegaard L., Lindström ons The Free Press. pp. 234-248. B. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p. 219.

16 Euregio Karelia (2000). See the preamble of The Agreement concerning the 27 Numerous facts speak in favour of this statement. Thus, one the most , Po creation of Euregio “Karelia” (in Russian) at: h p://euregio.karelia.ru/fi le/1/ competent Russian scholars in the fi eld of regionalism and regionalisation, agreement1_ru.rtf Andrey Makarychev, while speaking of one of the Russian border regions, lic 17 Euregio Karelia (2001). Euregio Karelia as a tool for civil society. At: h p:// noted: «Limits of possible integration of the Kaliningrad region into the Baltic euregio.karelia.ru/fi le/47/bulletin_e.rtf H. Kemppainen, Chairman of the regional structures are defi ned in terms of “hard” (military and state-centered) ies Regional Council of Kainuu, Co-chairman of the Administrative Commi ee security by the majority of Russian offi cials. It is indicative that the Interagency , St of EK: «Removal of barriers preventing cooperation between territories is also Commi ee on Kaliningrad region was created under the Security Council of one of our objectives. First of all, development of communication between Russia in 1999. The decision concerning the management of the Free Economic rat people from border areas seems to be signifi cant». Zone was made in 2001 at the same level”. See: Makarychev A. (2003). “Hard”

18 See: Cronberg, 2003. and “SoV ” Regionalism: the Kaliningrad outline (in Russian). At: h p://www. egi 19 The Republic of Karelia - brief economic-geographical information. At: h p:// rami.ru/cosmopolis/archives/2/8.html; see also: Makarychev A. (2002). Ideas, www.gov.karelia.ru/Diff erent/karelia_e.html Images and Their Producers: The Case of Region-making in Russia’s North es 20 Sorainen O. (2001). Finland. OECD Sopemi. Trends in international migration. West Federal District. Working Paper 24/2002. COPRI: Copenhagen Peace and Finland: Ministry of Labour. At: www.mol.fi /migration/fi nrep2001.pdf Research Institute. 21 See: Questions of Russian-speaking population of Finland 2002. At: h p:// * Valery Shlyamin, the Head of the Trade Representation of the Russian Pr www.rusin.fi/venajankieliset%5F2002/Suomen_venajankielisen_vaeston_ Federation in Finland.

kysymyksia_RU.pdf 28 Shlyamin V. (2006). “Finland – Trade and Economic Partner of Russia”. In: ogramm 22 Mitrany D. (1975). “A war-time submission (1941). Territorial, ideological, Days of Russian Economy in Finland: forum’s materials. Helsinki 19-20.04.2006. or functional international or-ganization?” In: Mitrany D. The Functional Theory [Dni rossiiskoi ekonomiki v Finlyandii: materialy foruma]. Petrozavodsk: of Politics. London: Martin Robinson. p. 120. Scandinavia. p. 120-121. 23 See: Lindberg L.N. (1963) The Political Dynamics of European Economic * The map has been modifi ed from Shlyamin, 2006: 126. es