THE ARCTIC’S NEAREST NEIGHBOUR? AN EVALUATION
OF THE UK’S 2013 ARCTIC POLICY DOCUMENT
Alyson Bailes
In October 2013 the United Kingdom became the first sovereign state not included among the Arctic Council's members to
publish an official Arctic strategy document. The paper discusses the human, environmental, and commercial aspects of
Arctic management in turn, and places a strong emphasis throughout on British scientific contributions. It seems to be trying
to stress relevant UK competences, and keep the door open for UK firms to get their fair share in development, while assuring
the Arctic powers proper that London respects their rights and will behave as a 'model' Arctic Council observer. Compared
with other Arctic strategies, the UK document is rather light on security-related analysis, climate concerns and commercial
facts, taking in fact a rather laisser-faire position on economic development. It says little on the European Union's role. It
remains to be seen whether this presentation of the UK position is complete and compelling enough to secure the desired
national influence in Arctic affairs. Much may depend on how other AC observers behave and react.
Introduction and Aims
The rapid progress of climate change and its impact on land and sea conditions in the
circumpolar North has created new policy challenges for states both in the Arctic zone1 and
beyond it. Between 2008 and 2012, the governments of all eight states who are members of the
Arctic Council (AC)2 published documents described as ‘strategies’ (or the equivalent), analyzing
the issues and spelling out their intentions for handling them.3 These strategies, like the ‘security
strategies’ or other single-issue strategies issued both by nations and institutions in the post-Cold
War period,4 typically serve a combination of purposes. In contrast to former times’ strategic
planning carried out in secrecy, they offer a transparent declaration of intent, usually projecting a
message of responsibility and readiness for international cooperation – though they may also
warn of resolve to protect national interests. Domestically, they signal the government’s concern
and competence and seek to coordinate the efforts of the various departments of state, as well as
providing guidance for non-state actors. In countries that have been less involved hitherto in
Alyson Bailes is Adjunct Professor at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik & a Visiting Professor at the
College of Europe in Bruges.