Serafima Andreeva holds an MSc in sociology from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and is a researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute. Her research focuses on Arctic governance, science-policy interface,, Russian climate politics, and the Arctic Council.
Svein Vigeland Rottem holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Tromsø and is a Senior Researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute. He is the author of The Arctic Council—Between Environmental Protection and Geopolitics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) and the co-editor of Arctic Governance: Norway, Russia and Asia. Volume 3 (I.B. Tauris, 2020).
On 24 February 2022, Russian forces invaded Ukraine. What Russia’s president Vladimir Putin called a “special military operation” was in fact a full-scale war that challenged Ukraine’s sovereignty and violated international law. At this time, Russia was in the middle of its chairship period of the Arctic Council. As of March 2022, the seven other member states paused their participation in the Council’s activities and its subsidiary bodies. On 11 May 2023, under the Norwegian chairship, which succeeded the Russian one, certain cooperative activities were restored. But how, and why, did the Arctic Council survive the immediate crisis stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
After the start of the invasion, Arctic cooperation, including scientific exchange, was significantly hampered. The crisis affected the translation of knowledge and weakened established international researcher networks that had taken time to develop. The invasion also brought back debates about whether cooperating with Russia in the Arctic could continue to be an exception to the tense relations with the country in other realms, even raising the specter of the end of Arctic exceptionalism. Collaboration within the Arctic Council is built upon international laws and mutual recognition of state sovereignty. Russia’s actions thusraised a core concern: How can the seven Arctic nations collaborate with a country that had challenged the principles on which their intergovernmental cooperation was founded?
How did the Arctic Council survive?
On 3 March 2022, the seven Western Arctic states issued a joint statement condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and temporarily paused their activities within the Council. This disruption also found place in other fora like the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, from which Russia withdrew its participation, and the Council of the Baltic Sea States, from which Russia was suspended. The discussions within the Arctic Council at the political level were largely confidential, and did not always include permanent participants in decision-making processes.
In May 2022, Norway confirmed that it would proceed with preparations for its upcoming chairship period despite the ongoing pause. The following June, the “Arctic seven”—the western AC member states—issued a statement signaling partial resumption of AC work without Russian involvement. This action attracted media attention, adding traction to debates about the Council’s prospects, which seemed bleak at the time. The Arctic Circle Assembly in October 2022 was, however, a turning point. Among those closely involved with the Arctic Council, the approach had been to avoid public discussions about its survival to prevent further speculation as to the body’s future. But after the Arctic Circle Assembly, leaders deemed it necessary to assert the Council’s relevance and demonstrate the commitment of all Arctic states to its continued survival.
In November 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov invited the Arctic states to a ministerial meeting to take place in May 2023. Norway accepted the invitation, signaling its desire for a smooth chairship transition and the continued existence of the Arctic Council. The transition of chairship from Russia and Norway was completed on 11 May 2023, despite challenges and the lack of in-person participation.
During the transition, Norway outlined its priorities, focusing on oceans, climate and environment, sustainable development, and the well-being of northern communities. Although Russia expressed conditioned skepticism to the upcoming Norwegian chairship period, particularly due to the potential influence of NATO in the Arctic Council—since, indeed, all AC member states except Russia were now NATO members—it did not push for alternative multilateral platforms.
After the transition, the body approved new guidelines for resuming scientific work within the Council’s Working Groups. The collective efforts of the Arctic states, under Norwegian chairship, have been crucial in preserving the Council’s role during this challenging period. Despite these gains, however, the future of the Arctic Council remains uncertain.
Why did the Arctic Council survive?
We define “survival” as the Arctic Council’s ability to continue functioning, albeit to a limited extent, with all participating member states. All member states have been kept engaged in ongoing activities to varying degrees, and all member states, including Russia, have expressed a desire to maintain cooperation. This fact, however, does not guarantee the Council’s future stability, much less immunity to external or internal challenges.
Legal framework
The legal framework of the Arctic Council is rooted in the 1996 Ottawa Declaration and the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), which emphasize consensus-based decision-making among member states. This framework deliberately avoids military security issues. The Council lacks the authority to impose sanctions, allowing its working groups to make clearer recommendations without the constraints of consensus-driven decision-making. These working groups, some of which predate the Council itself, have been instrumental in shaping international environmental policies.
Hence, the Arctic Council is more of a decision-shaping body than a decision-making one, providing a platform for non-state actors like indigenous communities to engage in international governance. Norway’s chairship transition in 2023 was made possible through a combination of established procedural documents and the strategic plan for 2021–2030. This strategic reliance on existing frameworks enabled Norway to navigate diplomatic challenges, ensuring the Council’s survival during a period of geopolitical instability. Yet procedural feasibility alone does not fully explain the Council’s survival.
Strategic framework
Over recent decades, global interest in the Arctic has surged, driven by the region’s strategic importance and the growing need for international cooperation. The AC has played a central role in facilitating this interest, even during times of high geopolitical tensions. All AC member states agree that the Arctic Council is the main forum for multilateral cooperation in the Arctic in the relevant strategic documents.
Moreover, the Arctic Council was created on the assumption that it would be possible to cooperate with Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Council’s founding agreement, the AEPS, was enabled through the Murmansk initiatives articulated by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987.
Foreign policy engagement
The Arctic Council has been a central arena for international cooperation in the region for several reasons. First, by promoting multilateral cooperation through the Council, Arctic states can counter expansionist ambitions from non-Arctic states and prevent conflict-driven narratives. The Council also serves as a barrier against the establishment of competing regimes, reinforcing the legitimacy of frameworks like the Law of the Sea Convention.
Furthermore, the Arctic Council’s structure, which includes indigenous peoples’ organizations as permanent participants, adds legitimacy and ensures diverse perspectives in decision-making. The Arctic Council's role in knowledge generation and its established networks have heightened global awareness of Arctic climate challenges, making its survival crucial for continued environmental collaboration.
Finally, the Council's origins in the post-Cold War era and its role in maintaining regional stability underscore its importance. The transition of chairmanship from Russia to Norway, coupled with the resumption of project-level work, illustrates the collective determination of the Arctic states to ensure the Council's continued existence, with an open-door policy for Russia’s potential future re-engagement.
