EU Arctic Policy Research Articles

Gender mainstreaming in the EU Arctic policy

Gender mainstreaming in the EU Arctic policy

LEGAL REGULATION DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED EUROPEAN UNION POLICY FOR THE ARCTIC IN COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CONCLUSIONS OF 2016 AND 2019

The article is dedicated to the study of legal regulation development of the EU Arctic policy, on the example of its current basic document (Joint Communication by the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic 2016) provisions evolution in the latest documents — four conclusions issued by the Council of the European Union in 2016 and 2019. Place and role of the aforementioned acts in legal regulation of the EU Arctic policy, as well as their interconnection, is examined. View of the Council of the European Union, as one of the Policy addressee, on its further development is demonstrated. By means of in-depth analysis of thematically different conclusions of the Council of the European Union, their contribution to the development of the ideas of Joint Communication within such directions as environment, sustainable development and international cooperation in Arctic is considered; new proposals and approaches are underlined. Special attention is paid to the definition of the legal nature of Joint Communication and conclusions as atypical acts of the EU institutions. During the study of documents accompanying the conclusions (especially on space issue), an integrated nature of the EU Arctic policy is demonstrated, i.e. its relationship with other EU policies and areas of competence (maritime, environmental, space). Based on the results of the study, several findings are made: Council conclusions of 2016 and 2019 compose together a single entity as integrated documents package, serve as the basis for further actions by the EU and Member States in the Arctic region; implementation of 2016 Policy in 2019-2020 and 2021 is carried along the same lines laid down by it, according to the same priorities, which are more adapted and supplemented by documents following it, with tendency to greater integration of Arctic policy into neighboring areas of competence.

China’s Interests in the Arctic and the EU’S Arctic Policy: Towards a Proactive EU Foreign Policy?

Initiated in 2008, the EU’S Arctic policy acknowledges the evolving geo-strategy of the Arctic region and intends to secure the EU’S trade and resource interests as new actors like China enter the Arctic arena. This paper shows that China’s growing assertiveness in the Arctic has impacted upon both EU Arctic policy and EU foreign policy. The new China’s trade interests in the Arctic, in particular the sensitive issue of rare earth elements, have triggered various moves in the EU in terms of trade and cooperation policies. The use of international law gives the EU some leeway to manage legal tensions with China which may still remain in some sectors, and which may also arise in connection with China’s legitimate aspirations in terms of becoming a rule maker as well. On an institutional level, engaging in an ambitious agenda with China also proves that the European External Action Service has gained in efficiency and internal coherence. Finally, this article also shows that the increasing connection of the EU’S Arctic policy with major bilateral relations calls for strengthened EU diplomatic attention in order to respect the principles guiding the EU’S action on the international scene as stated in the Treaty of the European Union, and to avoid a Eurocentric attitude that could undermine the ability of the EU to be a global actor. EU-China cooperation on Arctic issues certainly relies on a strong potential for cooperation, but it also represents additional challenges for the integrated EU Arctic policy that is expected by the end of 2015.

Internal Contradictions and External Anxieties: One ‘Coherent’ Arctic Policy for the European Union?

The European Union’s overarching policy towards the Arctic is an umbrella policy of complementary and coordination nature composed of internal, external and foreign policy elements. This article examines the policy framework from the perspective of ‘coherence’. What could a coherent and integrated EU Arctic policy entail – as called for by the Council and the European Parliament? I problematise the notion of coherence and offer an understanding of coherence deemed workable in the context of a regionfocused policy-making. Different dimensions of coherence are discussed: internal (lack of contradictory objectives), institutional (coherence between EU institutions), vertical (between the EU and its member states) and external (interaction with other Arctic actors). A number of interrelated contradictions or dichotomies are identified with focus on: Circumpolar versus European Arctic, maritime and terrestrial, internal and external, environmental and developmental goals. There is also a tension between the eagerness to adjust to narratives prevalent in the Arctic – owing to the anxiety of Arctic actors regarding the EU’S presence – and the need to respond to internal voices and retain EU values. While coherence as an ideal goal is a necessary principle of policymaking, its practical application may be counterproductive to a cross-cutting policy field, unless the meaning of ‘coherence’ is specified. I argue that the umbrella Arctic policy should be characterised by procedural rather than outcome coherence. That includes developing and maintaining durable mechanisms for dialogue with Arctic partners, management of the impact of EU policies, ongoing identification of gaps, effective internal coordination frameworks, and modes of continued involvement in Arctic governance structures. The Arctic policy could provide input into general EU decision-making processes, especially if inconsistencies are revealed. Institutional setting with a less dominant role of services focused on maritime and external aspects should be considered.

The European Union and the North: Towards the Development of an EU Arctic Policy?

The European Union and the North: Towards the Development of an EU Arctic Policy?

Norge og EU – partnere i Arktis

This article raises three main questions: (i) What characterizes the EEC/EU's relationship to the Arctic? (ii) What issues/areas have caused problems for the EU in becoming a more relevant actor in the Arctic? (iii) To what degree has Norway been able to exert influence on the Union's ongoing Arctic policy development? By chronologically reviewing the EEC/EU's relationship to the Arctic the article demonstrates that the intensity and interest for the Northern region has varied dramatically from great interest to near ignorance. While the Greenlandic population in 1982, due to cultural and economic disputes, left the EEC, the Union's most recent challenges with respect to becoming a relevant actor in the Arctic has concerned disagreements with some of the Arctic states. These disputes have primarily included discord on 1. The Law of the seas' role in the Arctic, 2. the EU's desire to become a permanent observer in the Arctic Council and finally, 3. The EU's ban on seal products in the Common market. The article concludes by describing how Norway has been one, if not the most, important Arctic state for the Union, and that Norway has benefitted from a cooperative approach towards the EU. The cooperative approach has indirectly given Norway an opportunity to influence the outcome of the EU's Arctic policy.

The EU and the Arctic: European foreign policy in the making

The EU is currently reviewing its interests in the High North and has recently started developing an Arctic policy. This article aims at explaining this foreign policy expansion by applying a theoretical framework consisting of three levels: (1) the internal level – viewing EU foreign policy (EFP) as the product of an “organization;” (2) the state level – in specifically accounting for the role played by external actors, primarily states; and (3) the systemic level – viewing the EU and its foreign policy as dependent on structural conditions within the global system. Through interviews, document studies, as well as existing scholarly research, the article identifies impact from all three analytical levels, including how the supranational and member-state level combined has been decisive in shaping the final policy outcome. The research identifies the crucial role played by other Arctic states, particularly Canada and Norway. Finally, on the systemic level, key conditions such as global warming and economic forces are recognized as relevant explanatory factors behind the development of the EU’s Arctic policy.Keywords: EU Arctic policy, European foreign policy (EFP), International rela- tions (IR).Citation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 3, 1/2012 p. 6–29. ISSN 1891-6252

The EU in the Arctic

On what grounds should we understand European Union's Arctic policy, and what type of influence can this system, which is less than a state but more than an international organization, have on developments in the region? The EU is composed of 27 member-states, most of which have peripheral relations with the Arctic. Only three member-states - Denmark, Finland and Sweden - have more or less direct stakes in the Arctic and are member-states of the Arctic Council as well. In addition, the EU has signed agreements such as the European economic agreement with two Arcticoriented states, Norway and Iceland.This article sheds light on what role the European Union seeks in Arctic affairs and how its ambitions overlap with and/or chaUenge the interests of the region's coastal states. EU-Norway relations serve as a case in point.1 First, the article discusses the reasons why the EU, which only a few years ago did not aspire to become an influential actor in the region, is now developing a cross-cutting Arctic policy. Second, it identifies key EU priorities, with a focus on Norwegian priorities, in order to identify common and diverging interests. Finally, the article discusses the prospects for the European Union to increase its influence on Arctic developments. The analysis aims to contribute to the understanding of whether the Arctic is in a process of opening up for new actors, or whether developments in the region are, and wul continue to be, dominated by stakeholders already part of an Arctic inner circle.EU Arctic policy should not be understood as the coordinated product of clear-cut rational calculations. One reason is the obvious fact that the EU consists of 27 member-states, with their various agendas, and three institutions that have developed institutional dynamics internaUy and among themselves. EU Arctic policy is in some respects incoherent and unclear due to the institutional setup and the power relations between institutions and the EU level and between the EU level and the member-states. The EU seeks to harmonize interests and in most cases does not enjoy decisive power over the member-states. Consequently, EU Arctic policy cannot be derived directly from the member-states' interests or be understood as the priorities of the agenda-setting, policy-driving European Commission, or of the parliament. In some respects it is the result of a bargaining process among various relevant stakeholders and in other respects the result of a coordinating process. Policy documents from the European Commission and parliament are often mistakenly taken for official EU policy whue they are in fact just expressions of these institutions' priorities at a given stage of the policymaking process, or even of those of a handful of people within these institutions.This article argues that EU Arctic policy is stul on the drawing board. The EU has since 2007 gone through a learning process on Arctic matters, in which its priorities have been more clearly defined, particularly in relation to coastal states. Important factors that motivate and affect policy are the engagement of a smaU number of particularly active stakeholders at the state, institutional, and individual levels; Arctic or international events; and EU policy in other issue areas with Arctic implications. Since 2007 EU Arctic policy has developed from addressing the security implications of climate change, to focusing on how the EU could gain legitimacy and influence by being a responsible actor, to a more recent approach of highlighting EU rights as weU as responsibuities in the region. It has become a major goal to be accepted as a legitimate and natural partner in Arctic affairs.There seems to be general agreement on the basic principles of Arctic affairs between Norway and the EU. It is more likely that possibly contested issues will emerge as a consequence of interaction at the issue-specific level, such as EU-Norway energy relations, or EU environmental regulations with relevance for the economic agreement and Arctic implications, than as the result of the development of an overarching EU policy for the region. …

Breaking the Ice

An accelerated path of climate change has tremendously increased the Arctic's profile over the last decade. Formerly remote and of little relevance, the region now attracts significant political and economic interest as melting ice opens possibilities for the exploitation of Arctic natural resources and access to new trade routes. Rising temperatures and sea level as a result of retreating snow and ice coverage also provoke global security concerns. Consequently, interested states increasingly link the Arctic more closely to their security and foreign policy strategies. In addition, existing territorial disputes combined with unsettled patterns of governance and actor constellations trigger regional developments with important implications for international legal and political systems.As developments in the Arctic region project themselves globally, they will necessarily have certain repercussions for European countries and their citizens. It is reported that about half of the fish caught in polar waters are consumed in the European Union.1 One quarter of the oil and gas extracted from the Arctic flows to the EU and contributes to its energy security.2 Over the last decade, 200 million euros were generated from European funds (within the EU framework programs) for Arctic scientific research.3 As the largest trading block and in control of 40 percent of world commercial shipping, the EU also has a natural interest in securing nondiscriminatory access to the strategically important northern sea route and the Northwest Passage.4Geography serves as an additional legitimating factor for the EU's concerns in the Arctic. Indeed, it is hard not to have a stake in the region when three of its member states - Finland, Denmark/ Greenland, and Sweden - participate in the main governmental forum for circumpolar cooperation, the Arctic Council. Norway and Iceland are parties to the European economic area agreement, which links them closely to the EU's policies. More than that, prompted by severe financial crisis, Iceland is on its way towards EU membership, something that might upgrade the EU's leverage in the Arctic significantly. Finally, Canada, Russia, and the US belong to a vast group of the EU's strategic partners that are tied to the EU by a number of specific pacts.Given the changing strategic importance of the region and a necessity to protect and promote its own interests and values, the EU has declared a clear intention to be more engaged in Arctic affairs and to develop its own Arctic policy. This motion also corresponds to a general objective of European governments to set up a more ambitious union foreign policy and to enhance its effectiveness, given the opportunities provided by the Lisbon treaty.5This article provides a brief sketch of the development of the EU's Arctic policy, placing its institutions at the centre of the analysis. It starts with a short examination of the external and internal triggers that led to the call for a unified and coordinated Arctic policy and continues with a more detailed investigation of the preferences and institutional roles of the European Commission, the European parliament, and the EU Arctic Forum, as well as the member-states, in developing a common policy for the region. The article then turns to the current chaUenges and future prospects of EU Arctic policy, given that the policy itself is a work in progress. FinaUy, some concluding remarks are provided on the question of how to make the EU's Arctic policy successful.MAPPING THE GROUND: OVERVIEW OF THE EU'S INITIAL INVOLVEMENTThe Arctic first became a target of attention of EU policymakers at the end of the 1980s, when a number of members of the European parliament started to question the commission about the state of the environment in the Arctic.6 With the EU's northern enlargement in the mid-90s, the region's salience grew even more. Drawing on a proposal from Finland, the EU adopted the northern dimension policy as a strategy of practical cooperation with the Baltic states, Russia, and the European economic area countries. …