Revisiting the ‘Non-Arctic States’ Designation in the Arctic Council

Anurag Bisen - Veteran submariner of the Indian Navy with over 35 years of service

The Arctic Council must abandon the exclusionary term 'non-Arctic states' and embrace a model of differentiated but equitable participation. By enabling a wider array of voices to contribute, especially on scientific and environmental issues, the Council can remain effective, relevant, and responsive to the challenges of our time.

Introduction

The Arctic is no longer an isolated and frozen frontier. It is a critical component of the Earth’s climate system and plays a pivotal role in global environmental dynamics. As the ice melts and temperatures rise nearly four times the global average, the Arctic’s influence is increasingly felt far beyond its physical boundaries, across the globe, in distant countries, such as India and Indonesia.

However, despite the growing global climatic impact of the Arctic, decision-making on environmental issues in the region remains concentrated in the hands of a select few, with limited participatory rights extended to other interested states. The Arctic Council, the primary multilateral forum for Arctic cooperation, continues to operate within an outdated binary framework that categorises nations as either Arctic or non-Arctic.

This commentary contends that such language is exclusionary, reinforces a form of geopolitical elitism, and undermines the inclusive, collaborative approach needed to effectively address shared planetary challenges.

Arctic Melting and its Global Climatic Implications                    

The Arctic as a Climate Regulator: The Arctic functions as a planetary thermostat. Its vast ice cover reflects solar radiation back into space, a phenomenon known as the albedo effect. As global temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic sea and land ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. This loss reduces the Earth's albedo, causing the planet to absorb more heat and accelerating global warming in a positive feedback loop^[1]. This phenomenon is one of the most potent amplifiers of climate change globally.

Moreover, the Arctic Ocean plays a vital role in thermohaline circulation, also known as the global ocean conveyor belt. This circulation is driven by differences in water temperature and salinity, with cold, salty Arctic waters sinking and propelling ocean currents that regulate the Earth's climate. Melting ice introduces large volumes of freshwater into the North Atlantic, disrupting this circulation system and threatening global climate stability^[2].

Disruption of Weather Patterns: Arctic amplification, the phenomenon where the Arctic is warming at over three to four times the global average, has profound effects on atmospheric circulation^[3]. One key impact is the weakening of the jet stream, a high-altitude wind current that normally contains cold air within the polar regions. As the temperature difference between the Arctic and mid-latitudes decreases, the jet stream slows and becomes more erratic, causing weather patterns to linger longer than usual^[4].

This has been linked to longer heatwaves and droughts in Europe and North America, increased cold spells in mid-latitude regions despite global warming, and shifts in monsoons and tropical rainfall patterns, particularly affecting Asia and Africa. In India, for example, disruptions in the Arctic have been co-related with weaker monsoon seasons and altered precipitation patterns, with serious implications for food security and agriculture^[5].

Coastal protective measures taken to stabilise a beach in Karnataka. | Public Works, Ports, and Inland Water Transport Department, Karnataka

Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Threats: The Greenland Ice Sheet, part of the Arctic cryosphere, holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by over seven meters if fully melted. Current projections estimate that if Arctic melting continues at its current pace, sea levels could rise by more than one meter by 2100, affecting low-lying nations and coastal megacities around the world^[6].

Beyond sea-level rise, Arctic permafrost thawing releases methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. This additional warming feedback exacerbates global climate change and threatens to push planetary systems past irreversible tipping points^[7].

Ecosystem Shifts and Biodiversity Loss: Changes in the Arctic climate are causing species migration and loss of habitat, which affects global biodiversity. For instance, Polar bears, seals, and walruses are losing their ice habitats. Arctic changes also influence migratory bird populations across North America, Europe, and Asia. Similarly, Marine ecosystems worldwide are affected by changes in Arctic nutrient flows and ocean chemistry^[8].

The Arctic is interconnected with global ecological systems, and the breakdown of Arctic biodiversity has cascading effects on food webs and ecological resilience globally.

Global Importance of the Arctic

Because of its far-reaching planetary effects, the Arctic can no longer be viewed as a remote or isolated region. It has become a central component of the global climate system. Changes occurring in the Arctic exert direct influence on agriculture, especially in nations reliant on seasonal rainfall, while also shaping disaster preparedness strategies as extreme weather events grow more frequent. Moreover, the region’s transformation carries significant economic implications worldwide, including rising insurance costs, infrastructure vulnerabilities, and challenges related to resource access. Consequently, policymaking for the Arctic must adopt an inclusive and cooperative approach that acknowledges the region’s interconnected and shared environmental future.

Arctic Exceptionalism is no Longer Relevant

The term 'Arctic exceptionalism' refers to the belief that the Arctic is a zone of peace and cooperation, distinct from the conflictual geopolitics seen elsewhere. While this idea has helped promote regional stability, it has also created an ideological barrier to broader participation. The post-Cold War period saw Nordic states in particular framing Arctic governance as a special realm best left to those who live there.

This has produced an institutional framework that prioritizes geographical proximity over substantive relevance. As a result, scientifically advanced and environmentally responsible nations such as India, Japan, and Germany are relegated to peripheral roles in Arctic affairs, despite the profound impact that developments in the region have on them.

Governance Gaps in a Globalising Arctic

The maxim 'what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic' is more than rhetorical. Scientific evidence increasingly links Arctic warming with climatic disruptions in the tropics, mid-latitudes, and even the Southern Hemisphere. Melting glaciers contribute to global sea level rise, and shifting jet streams and polar vortex patterns affect weather systems across continents.

Despite this interconnectedness, the Arctic Council’s current observer rules do not empower these affected regions to meaningfully shape responses. Observer states are not allowed to vote, lead projects without Arctic partners, or fund more than half of joint scientific efforts. This limits innovation and delays solutions to shared problems.

Monsoons and the Arctic: A Case for Substantive Relevance    

India’s engagement with the Arctic offers a compelling case of substantive relevance. Scientific research has shown that Arctic ice melt and atmospheric changes influence the Indian summer monsoon. This monsoon delivers 70% of India’s annual rainfall, sustains more than half the country’s population, and underpins nearly 20% of its GDP^[9].

However, under Arctic Council rules, India cannot independently initiate a research project under the Council’s working groups unless partnered with an Arctic state. Funding restrictions further limit its participation, regardless of India’s scientific or financial capacity. This model disincentivizes valuable research that could benefit both Arctic science and global climate forecasting^[10].

China and the "Near-Arctic" Debate: Semantics Over Substance        

In 2018, China described itself as a 'near-Arctic state' in its Arctic policy white paper. While the phrase was possibly intended to emphasize its geographical proximity and scientific interest, it provoked strong criticism from Arctic states who viewed it as an overreach.

This debate distracted from the substance of China's contributions, such as investment in Arctic infrastructure, funding for polar research, and climate modeling.

Instead, the discourse turned to whether China had the 'right' to frame itself as part of the Arctic dialogue. The controversy exemplifies how semantic battles can eclipse cooperation on urgent issues like climate adaptation and marine biodiversity loss^[11].

Regional Governance Models: Lessons from the Indian Ocean

Other regions have adopted more inclusive frameworks for multilateral engagement. The Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) use the terms 'member' and 'observer' to denote institutional roles without implying geographic exclusivity^[12]. This inclusive language fosters a sense of partnership rather than hierarchy. States like the USA, UK, and Japan participate in Indian Ocean affairs based on historical ties, maritime capabilities, or strategic interests, and not solely geography. The Arctic Council would benefit from adopting a similarly flexible, functional approach.

Recommendations

Eliminate the Term “Non-Arctic States”:  The Arctic Council should amend its founding documents to remove the term 'Non-Arctic States'. Language such as 'Observer states' or 'partner states' better reflects the collaborative nature of their role without diminishing the leadership of Arctic states.

Reform Scientific Cooperation Protocols: The Council should allow Observer States to independently lead research projects related to transregional issues like monsoons, sea-level rise, or fisheries. Funding caps on observer-led initiatives should also be revisited to reflect the growing resource capacity and commitment of these states.

Use Denmark’s Chair ship to Launch Institutional Review: Denmark (with Greenland), as the current chair of the Arctic Council, should initiate a working group to evaluate participation frameworks. Given Denmark’s role in balancing national sovereignty with multilateral diplomacy (especially through Greenland), it is well positioned to lead a reform agenda that enhances inclusivity without undermining Arctic priorities.

Conclusion

In a world where climate change knows no borders, governance mechanisms must evolve to reflect the reality of interdependence. The Arctic Council must abandon the exclusionary term 'non-Arctic states' and embrace a model of differentiated but equitable participation. By enabling a wider array of voices to contribute, especially on scientific and environmental issues, the Council can remain effective, relevant, and responsive to the challenges of our time.

(Exclusive to NatStrat)

Endnotes

1. IPCC. (2021). Sixth Assessment Report (AR6): The Physical Science Basis.
2. Rahmstorf, S. (2002). Ocean circulation and climate during the past 120,000 years. Nature, 419(6903), 207–214.
3. Serreze, M. C., & Barry, R. G. (2011). Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis. Global and Planetary Change, 77(1–2), 85–96.
4. Francis, J. A., & Vavrus, S. J. (2012). Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(6).
5. Zhang, R. et al. (2020). Arctic warming and the weakening of the Indian Summer Monsoon. Nature Climate Change, 10(6), 531–537.
6. Church, J. A., et al. (2013). Sea Level Change. IPCC AR5 Working Group I.
7. Schuur, E. A. G., et al. (2015). Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature, 520, 171–179.
8. AMAP. (2017). Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents Region. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway.
9. Lal, M. et al. (2016). Monsoon Variability and Indian Agriculture. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(3), 245–260.
10. Zhang, R. et al. (2020). Arctic warming and the weakening of the Indian Summer Monsoon. Nature Climate Change, 10(6), 531–537.
11. Tonami, A. (2017). China’s Arctic policy: The ‘near-Arctic’ state. Arctic Yearbook.
12. IORA. About IORA. , IONS. Mission and Membership.