One of the key issues—and simultaneously one of the benefits—of Arctic discourse is that the region resists easy definition. The Arctic is multifaceted, and its “borders” can be delineated in several ways, each offering a distinct perspective:
- Geographic: defined by the Arctic Circle at 66°33′N latitude.
- Climatic: a shifting line based on temperature patterns, which are increasingly affected by climate change.
- Legal: domestic definitions vary significantly between Arctic countries. For example, Russia and Finland have markedly different interpretations of where their respective Arctic zones begin, with Finland’s Arctic zone extending further north than Russia’s official delineation.
There is also the classic geopolitical approach of categorising “Arctic countries”. This includes the Arctic Five (nations with direct access to the Arctic Ocean) and the Arctic Eight (member states of the Arctic Council). Yet even here, inconsistencies arise due to differing national policies and legal frameworks.
Polar Parallels: Arctic And Antarctic Discourse
The Arctic and Antarctic share many similarities in terms of environmental challenges, governance issues, and scientific research priorities. As such, discussions about one polar region often inform or translate into debates about the other. From this perspective, adopting a linguistic and conceptual framework for understanding the Arctic resolves some analytical challenges, though exceptions remain, as we will explore further.
When calibrating our internal systems for parsing information related to the Arctic, one of the recurring challenges was recognising how relatively marginal the region remains within global discourse. Despite growing awareness of its importance, the Arctic still struggles to occupy a central place in broader conversations about geopolitics, economics, or culture.
The Shape Of Arctic Discourse
To understand what constitutes Arctic discourse today, it is important to identify its dominant themes. The most prominent issue, unsurprisingly, is climate change , which has become synonymous with discussions of the region. Other major topics include:
- Expeditions: exploration and scientific research remain integral to the region’s identity.
- Tourism: growing interest in polar tourism has brought attention to the Arctic’s unique landscapes and fragile ecosystems.
These three themes—climate change, expeditions, and tourism—continue to dominate Arctic-related discussions. Everything else tends to fall into niche categories. One amusing exception is the band Arctic Monkeys, whose name frequently appears in search engine queries related to the term Arctic, overshadowing even critical issues like climate change.
Broader Contexts: Antarctica And Beyond
Another notable feature of Arctic discourse is its intersection with non-Arctic topics. For instance, discussions about the Antarctic—the southern polar region—are often intertwined with those about the Arctic. Both regions face similar ecological threats and governance questions, making them natural counterparts in global environmental debates. Thus, while the Arctic may attract specific regional attention, it also serves as a gateway for wider discussions about polar science, conservation, and international cooperation.
The Arctic As A Conceptual Space
The Arctic possesses a rich “text”—a literal and cultural code shaped by centuries of human interaction with its harsh yet captivating environment. However, in contemporary media and public discourse, the term “Arctic” often functions more as a buzzword than a precise concept. Coverage of Arctic climate issues and ecological concerns tends to be ad hoc rather than systematic.
By contrast, other regions in international relations—such as the Middle East or Europe—are far more politicised. Discussions about these areas typically revolve around political dynamics, economic interests, and security concerns. The Arctic occupies an intriguing middle ground. While it is undeniably political, its politics are less overtly contentious compared to those of other regions. Instead, the Arctic blends elements of environmental stewardship, scientific exploration, and geopolitical strategy, creating a unique hybrid space in global discourse.
A Region Still Finding Its Identity
Interestingly, the Arctic is relatively young as a defined region. In 2011, researchers still explored the motivations behind labelling the Arctic as a cohesive entity. At that time, during the early 2010s, the Arctic had not yet fully coalesced into a unified concept within the framework of international relations theory. It was only through increasing attention to climate change, resource extraction, and indigenous rights that the Arctic began to take shape as a distinct region. Surprisingly, the same term still appears in 2025—Arctic as a new region of world politics.
Today, the Arctic continues to evolve. Its identity is shaped by both tangible realities—melting ice caps, new shipping routes, and emerging industries—and intangible narratives rooted in history, culture, and imagination. Understanding the Arctic requires navigating this complex interplay between fact and perception, science and symbolism.
As the world grapples with the implications of a warming planet, the Arctic will undoubtedly grow in prominence. Whether it becomes a beacon of sustainable development or a battleground for competing interests depends on how we choose to define—and ultimately engage with—this enigmatic region.
AUTHOR