The European Union and the Arctic: A Decade into Finding Its Arcticness

  • Andreas RaspotnikEmail author
  • Adam Stępień
Part of the Frontiers in International Relations book series (FIR)


Over the last ten years, the European Union (EU) has felt an Arctic allure, with its various institutions attempting to formulate a coherent policy approach for its ‘Northern Neighbourhood.’ However, the EU’s decade-long involvement in the Arctic can be characterized by ambivalence. On the one hand, the Union has an obvious presence in the north in terms of geography, legal competence, market access or its environmental footprint and contribution to Arctic science. On the other hand, three factors have made the EU’s efforts to become constructively involved in the Arctic both controversial and complex. These factors are its lack of direct access to the Arctic Ocean, its slightly paternalistic Arctic policy statements portraying the EU as part of the ‘solution’ to the region’s challenges without sufficiently taking into considerations Arctic sensitivities, and the sustained difficulty to find a convincing Arctic narrative that would attract broader attention throughout the Member States. This chapter will go to the bottom of the EU’s decade-long Arctic endeavour, analysing the Union’s search to find and understand its very own Arcticness.


  1. Aalto, P. (2013). Explaining the “Arctic Exception” in European Union-Russia relations: What is missing? The Northern Review, 37, 101–125.Google Scholar
  2. Bailes, A. J. K. (2010). Potential roles of NATO and the EU in High Northern security. In G. Alfredsson, T. Koivurova, & N. Loukacheva (Eds.), The yearbook of polar law (Vol. 2, pp. 201–224). Leiden & Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Boden, T. A., Marland, J., & Andres, R. J. (2017). Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Accessed September 13, 2019.
  4. Cavalieri, S., McGlynn, E., Stoessel, S., Stuke, F., Bruckner, M., Polzin, C., et al. (2010). EU Arctic footprint and policy assessment: Final report. Accessed July 25, 2011.
  5. Commission of the European Communities. (2007, October 10). In An integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (COM(2007) 575 final), Brussels, 10.10.2007.Google Scholar
  6. Council of the European Union. (2014). In European Union Maritime Security Strategy (11205/14), Brussels, 24 June 2014.Google Scholar
  7. De Botselier, B., Piqueres, S. L., & Schunz, S. (2018). Addressing the “Arctic Paradox”: Environmental Policy Integration in the European Union’s emerging Arctic Policy (No. 3/2018). Accessed December 12, 2018.
  8. Dodds, K. (2012). Anticipating the Arctic and the Arctic Council: Pre-emption, precaution and preparedness. In T. S. Axworthy, T. Koivurova, & W. Hasanat (Eds.), The Arctic Council: Its place in the future of Arctic Governance (pp. 2–28). Toronto: Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program & University of Lapland.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission, & High Representative. (2016). In An Integrated European Union Policy for the Arctic (JOIN(2016) 21 Final), Brussels, 27.4.2016.Google Scholar
  10. European Parliament. (2008). In Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance (P6_TA(2008)0474).Google Scholar
  11. European Political Strategy Centre. (2019). In Walking on Thin Ice: A Balanced Arctic Strategy for the EU (No. EPSC Strategic Notes). Accessed July 21, 2019.
  12. Garcés de los Fayos, F. (2015). In The Outcome of the Ninth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting (No. DG EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2015_171). Accessed June 10, 2015.
  13. High Representative. (2016). In Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe: A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Accessed January 1, 2017.
  14. High Representative, & European Commission. (2008). In Climate Change and International Security (S113/08), Brussels, 14 March 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Hix, S. (2005). The political system of the European Union (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Kobza, P. (2015). In Civilian Power Europe in the Arctic: How Far Can the European Union Go North? (No. EU Diplomacy Paper 01/2015). Accessed May 18, 2015.
  17. Koivurova, T., Kokko, K., Duyck, S., Sellheim, N., & Stępień, A. (2012). The present and future competence of the European Union in the Arctic. Polar Record, 48(4), 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, N. (2013). The European Union’s potential contribution to enhanced Governance of Arctic Shipping. Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht Und Völkerrecht, 73, 705–733.Google Scholar
  19. Offerdal, K. (2011). The EU in the Arctic: In pursuit of legitimacy and influence. International Journal, 66(4), 861–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Østhagen, A. (2013). The European Union—An Arctic actor? Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 15(2), 71–92.Google Scholar
  21. Østhagen, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2017). Partners or rivals? Norway and the European Union in the High North. In N. Liu, E. A. Kirk, & T. Henriksen (Eds.), The European Union and the Arctic (pp. 97–118). Leiden & Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raspotnik, A. (2018). The European Union and the geopolitics of the Arctic. Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Raspotnik, A., & Østhagen, A. (2018, January 22). Quo vadis Arctic? The EU and its Northern neighbourhood. Accessed January 31, 2018.
  24. Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2017). CO2and Greenhouse gas emissions. Accessed September 13, 2019.
  25. Schatz, V. J., Proelss, A., & Liu, N. (2019). The 2018 agreement to prevent unregulated high seas fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: A critical analysis. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 34(2), 195–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sellheim, N. (2015). Policies and influence: Tracing and locating the EU seal products trade regulation. International Community Law Review, 17(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stępień, A. (2015). Internal contradictions and external anxieties: one ‘Coherent’ Arctic Policy for the European Union? In G. Alfredsson, T. Koivurova, & J. Jabour (Eds.), The yearbook of polar law (Vol. 7, pp. 249–289). Leiden & Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Stępień, A., Kankaanpää, P., & Koivurova, T. (2014). Scope, methodology and stakeholder engagement. In A. Stępień, T. Koivurova, & P. Kankaanpää (Eds.), Strategic assessment of development of the Arctic. Assessment conducted for the European Union (pp. 1–9). Rovaniemi: Arctic Centre, University of Lapland.Google Scholar
  29. Stępień, A., & Koivurova, T. (2016). The making of a coherent Arctic Policy for the European Union: Anxieties, contradictions and possible future pathways. In A. Stępień, T. Koivurova, & P. Kankaanpää (Eds.), The changing Arctic and the European Union: A book based on the report “Strategic Assessment of Development of the Arctic: Assessment Conducted for the European Union” (pp. 20–56). Leiden & Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stępień, A., Koivurova, T., & Kankaanpää, P. (Eds.). (2016). The Changing Arctic and the European Union. Brill: Leiden & Boston.Google Scholar
  31. Stępień, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2019a). Can the EU’s Arctic Policy find true north? Accessed September 11, 2019.
  32. Stępień, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2019b). The EU’s Arctic Policy: Between vision and reality. Accessed August 21, 2019.
  33. van Dam, K., Scheepstra, A., Gille, J., Stępień, A., & Koivurova, T. (2014). Mining in the European Arctic. In A. Stępień, T. Koivurova, & P. Kankaanpää (Eds.), Strategic assessment of development of the Arctic. Assessment conducted for the European Union (pp. 87–99). Rovaniemi: Arctic Centre, University of Lapland.Google Scholar
  34. Weber, S. (2014). The development of an EU Arctic Policy: Interests, objectives and initiatives. In A. Sprüds & T. Rostoks (Eds.), Perceptions and strategies of arcticness in sub-arctic Europe (pp. 43–74). Riga: Latvian Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  35. Wegge, N. (2012). The EU and the Arctic: European foreign policy in the making. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 3(1), 6–29.Google Scholar
  36. Wegge, N. (2013). Politics between science, law and sentiments: Explaining the European Union’s ban on trade in seal products. Environmental Politics, 22(2), 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.High North Center for Business and Governance, Nord UniversityBodøNorway
  2. 2.Arctic Centre, University of LaplandRovaniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations