Arctic Strategies of the EU and Non-Arctic States: Identifying Some Common Elements

  • Henning JessenEmail author
Part of the WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs book series (WMUSTUD, volume 7)


The national Arctic strategies of the eight Member States of the Arctic Council serve as important domestic policy guidelines to pursue long-term national objectives in Arctic matters. As part of an evolving process, several non-Arctic States have developed such policy guidelines as well. Most of these nations are recurring observers to the Arctic Council (i.e. on a “non-ad hoc” basis). Their national Arctic strategies outline the driving factors for active research engagement and other objectives in the region. Moreover, the European Union (EU) is in process of defining its major policy objectives in the Arctic as well. The EU’s goals are evidenced by a series of publications from different EU institutions, developing further an “EU Integrated Arctic Policy”. This chapter first provides a summary and reference guide on the EU’s general policy objectives in international (marine) environmental law and ocean governance, including statements on the evolution of an Integrated EU Arctic policy since 2008. It is supplemented by some references on the German national Arctic strategy (first published in 2013) which represents an exemplary policy document of a non-Arctic State with a comprehensive interest in Arctic matters. The chapter also identifies some further common elements of national Arctic strategies of other non-Arctic States.


Arctic Council Arctic governance Non-Arctic States Observers to the Arctic Council Integrated EU Arctic Policy 


Books and Book Chapters

  1. Chao, J. K. T. (2013). China’s emerging role in the Arctic. In H. N. Schreiber & J.-H. Paik (Eds.), Regions, institutions, and the law of the sea (pp. 467–491). Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Churchill, R., & Ulfstein, G. (2005). Marine management in disputed areas – The case of the Barents Sea. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ecologic Institute. (2010). EU Arctic footprint and policy assessment: Final report. Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Elferink, A. G. O., Molenaar, E. J., & Rothwell, D. R. (2013). The regional implementation of the law and the sea and the Polar regions. In E. J. Molenaar, A. G. O. Elferink, & D. R. Rothwell (Eds.), The law of the sea and the Polar regions (pp. 1–16). Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Freestone, D. (2008). Principles applicable to modern ocean governance. International Journal of Coastal and Marine Law, 23(3), 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freestone, D. (2014). Governing the Blue: Governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction in the twenty-first century. In C. Schofield, S. Lee, & M.-S. Kwon (Eds.), The limits of maritime jurisdiction (pp. 729–752). Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Long, R. (2014). Principles and normative trends in EU ocean governance. In C. Schofield, S. Lee, & M.-S. Kwon (Eds.), The limits of maritime jurisdiction (pp. 699–726). Boston/Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Nong Hong, & Dey Nuttall, A. (2014). Emerging interests of non-Arctic countries in the Arctic. In R. W. Murray & A. Dey Nuttall (Eds.), International relations and the Arctic: Understanding policy and governance (Chapter 19). Cambria Press.Google Scholar
  9. Weidemann, L. (2014). International governance of the Arctic marine environment. Heidelberg/New York et al.: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

EU Documents

  1. European Commission and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security, Climate change and international security, Chapter from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council, S113/08 of 14 March 2008.Google Scholar
  2. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: The European Union and the Arctic Region, Brussels, 20 November 20, COM(2008) 763 final.Google Scholar
  3. European Commission and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security, Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Developing a European Union Policy towards the Arctic Region: progress since 2008 and next steps, Brussels, 26 June 2012, JOIN(2012) 19 final.Google Scholar
  4. European Commission and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security, Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic, Brussels [2016], JOIN(2016) 21 final.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission, Roadmaps for international cooperation, Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 11 September 2014, SWD(2014) 276 final.Google Scholar
  6. European Commission, Sea basin strategy: Arctic Ocean: (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  7. European Council, Council Decision No. 136/2014/EU of 20 February 2014 laying down rules and procedures to enable the participation of Greenland in the Kimberley Process certification scheme, OJ L84/99 of 20 March 2014.Google Scholar
  8. European Economic and Social Committee, Opinion of the on ‘EU Arctic Policy to address globally emerging interests in the region — A view of civil society, OJ C 198/26 of 10 July 2013.Google Scholar
  9. European Parliament, Resolution of 20 January 2011 on a sustainable EU policy for the High North (2009/2214(INI)).Google Scholar
  10. European Parliament, Question for written answer E-002847/14 to the Commission, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), The race for the Arctic: European prospects (11 March 2014), OJ 2014/C 326/01.Google Scholar
  11. European Parliament, Resolution of 12 March 2014 on the EU strategy for the Arctic (2013/2595(RSP)).Google Scholar
  12. Interact 2016, available for download at (last visited: 1 November 2016).

Journal Articles (Including Online Articles and Digital Object Identifiers)

  1. Baker, B. (2013). Offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic: What the Arctic Council and International Law can – and cannot – do. ASIL Proceedings, 275–279.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, A. (2014). China’s strategy in the Arctic: A case of lawfare? The Polar Journal, 4(2), 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, M. M. (2014). The Maritime Tiger: Exploring South Korea’s interests and role in the Arctic. Strategic Analysis, 38(6), 886–903. Scholar
  4. Chaturvedi, S. (2014, July). India’s Arctic engagement: Challenges and opportunities. Asia Policy, 18, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chuah, J. (2012). The development of an EU Arctic Policy? Perhaps Not… . Journal of International Maritime Law, 18, 251–252.Google Scholar
  6. Depledge, D. (2012). The United Kingdom and the Arctic in the 21st century. Arctic Yearbook, 130–138. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  7. Dodds, K. (2015). The Ilulissat Declaration (2008): The Arctic States, “Law of the Sea,” and Arctic Ocean. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 33, 45–55. Scholar
  8. Freestone, D. (2009). The modern principles of high seas governance. The Legal Underpinnings, International Environmental Policy and Law, 39(1), 44–49.Google Scholar
  9. Graczyk, P. (2012). Poland and the Arctic: Between science and diplomacy. Arctic Yearbook, 139–155. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  10. Hossain, K., & Koivurova, T. (2012). Hydrocarbon development in the offshore Arctic: Can it be done sustainably? Oil Gas and Energy Law (OGEL), 2. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  11. Johnstone, R. L. (2012). An Arctic strategy for Scotland. Arctic Yearbook, 114–129. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  12. Kim, J. D. (2014). Overview of Korea’s Arctic policy development. Strategic Analysis, 38(6), 917–923. Scholar
  13. Knecht, S. (2015). New observers queuing up: Why the Arctic Council should expand - and expel. The Arctic Institute. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  14. Koivurova, T. (2013). Multipolar and multilevel governance in the Arctic and the Antarctic. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 107, 443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lackenbauer, P. (2013). Whitney, India’s Arctic engagement: Emerging perspectives. Arctic Yearbook, 1–19. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  16. Long, R. (2011). The Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A new European approach to the regulation of the marine environment, marine natural resources and marine ecological services. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, 29, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markus, T., Schlacke, S., & Maier, N. (2011). Legal implementation of integrated ocean policies: The EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 26, 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nong Hong. (2014). Emerging interests of non-Arctic countries in the Arctic: A Chinese perspective. The Polar Journal, 4(2), 271–286. Scholar
  19. Offerdal, K. (2011). The EU in the Arctic. International Journal (Autumn), 861–877.Google Scholar
  20. Peng, J., & Wegge, N. (2014). China and the law of the sea: Implications for Arctic governance. The Polar Journal, 4(2), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raspotnik, A., & Østhagen, A. (2014). To Svalbard and beyond – The European Parliament is back on its Arctic Track, March 17, 2014. (last visited:1 November 2016).
  22. Schram Stokke, O. (2007). International institutions and Arctic governance. In O. Schram Stokke & G. Hønneland (Eds.), International cooperation and Arctic governance (pp. 164–184). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Schram Stokke, O. (2014). Asian stakes and Arctic governance. Strategic Analysis, 38(6), 770–783. Scholar
  24. Solli, P. E., Wilson Rowe, E., & Lindgren, W. Y. (2013). Coming into the cold: Asia’s Arctic interests. Polar Geography, 36(4), 253–270. Scholar
  25. The Gordon Foundation. (2011). Interests and roles of non-Arctic states in the Arctic. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  26. Tonami, A. (2014). The Arctic policy of China and Japan: Multi-layered economic and strategic motivations. The Polar Journal, 4(1), 105–126. Scholar
  27. Tonami, A., & Watters, S. (2012). Japan’s Arctic Policy: The sum of many parts. Arctic Yearbook, 93–103. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  28. Vigeland Rottem, S. (2015). A note on the Arctic Council agreements. Ocean Development & International Law, 46, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watters, S., & Tonami, A. (2012). Singapore: An emerging Arctic actor. Arctic Yearbook, 104–115. (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  30. Wegge, N. (2013). Politics between science, law and sentiments. Explaining the European Union’s ban on trade with seal products. Environmental Politics, 22, 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Other Online Documents

  1. Arctic Council, Observers, (last visited: 1 November 2016).
  2. German Arctic Strategy 2013, available for download at: File/185871/Arktisleitlinien.pdf (last visited: 1 November 2016).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.World Maritime University (WMU)MalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations