Navigating Arctic Meltdown: A Proactive and Principled EU Arctic Policy Proposal for a Sustainable, Resilient, and Just Future - Part II

Part II

Return to Part I here

Abstract

This policy proposal addresses the urgent and multifaceted challenges facing the Arctic region in the era of "Arctic Meltdown" – a scenario characterized by accelerating environmental change and intensifying geopolitical instability. Recognizing the European Union's responsibility as an Arctic stakeholder and its constrained geopolitical position, this document outlines a proactive and principled EU Arctic policy framework. Guided by the core principles of Sustainability, Resilience, International Cooperation, and Inclusivity, and with a foundational commitment to the rights and well-being of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, the proposal articulates five key policy priorities: securing Arctic peace and stability, forging strategic partnerships with Iceland, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Canada, championing sustainable Arctic prosperity and well-being, centering Arctic Indigenous Peoples, and embracing Canada as a vital transatlantic partner. The document emphasizes the strategic imperative of enhanced international cooperation and the transformative potential of ethical and responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) deployment in navigating the complexities of "Arctic Meltdown" and building a sustainable, resilient, and just Arctic future. It concludes with a call to action for the EU to embrace a decisive and leading Arctic role, working in close partnership with like-minded nations and Indigenous communities to address the unprecedented challenges and opportunities in this strategically vital and rapidly changing region. The proposed policy framework aims to equip the EU to effectively navigate the turbulent waters of "Arctic Meltdown," strengthen its Arctic agency, and contribute meaningfully to a sustainable and peaceful Arctic future for the benefit of Europe and the world.

Conclusion: Towards a Sustainable, Resilient, and Just Arctic Future: An Imperative for Decisive EU Action

As this policy proposal has outlined, the Arctic region stands at a critical precipice. The accelerating "Arctic Meltdown" scenario, a convergence of environmental catastrophe and geopolitical instability, demands nothing less than a fundamental re-evaluation of the European Union's Arctic policy and a decisive shift towards proactive, strategic, and ethically grounded action. The challenges are immense, the stakes are high, and the time for incrementalism is definitively over. The EU faces a stark choice: to be a passive observer, marginalized by the unfolding Arctic crisis, or to embrace its responsibility as a leading Arctic stakeholder, working resolutely to shape a more sustainable, peaceful, and just future for this vital region and for the world.

This document has argued that the core principles of Sustainability, Resilience, International Cooperation, and Inclusivity must serve as the unwavering compass guiding all EU Arctic policy. These principles are not merely aspirational values, but essential pillars for building a truly effective and ethically sound approach to the Arctic in the face of unprecedented change. Sustainability is not just environmental protection, but an existential imperative for the Arctic and the EU alike. Resilience is not just adaptation, but the key to withstanding systemic shocks and building long-term stability. International Cooperation is not just a preferred approach, but an indispensable necessity for navigating the complex geopolitical landscape and addressing shared challenges. And Inclusivity, centered on the rights and empowerment of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, is not just a matter of social justice, but a foundational ethical responsibility and a source of invaluable knowledge and wisdom.

To operationalize these principles and to effectively confront the "Arctic Meltdown" scenario, this proposal has identified five core policy priorities for the EU: Securing Arctic Peace and Stability, Forging Strategic Arctic Partnerships, Championing Sustainable Arctic Prosperity and Well-being, Centering Arctic Indigenous Peoples, and Embracing Canada as a Transatlantic Partner. These priorities are interconnected and mutually reinforcing, forming a comprehensive and action-oriented agenda for the EU in the Arctic. They are not merely a wish list, but a set of concrete steps that the EU must take, working in close collaboration with its vital partners, to navigate the complexities of the changing Arctic and strive towards a better future.

Strategic partnerships with Iceland, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Canada are repeatedly emphasized throughout this proposal as absolutely crucial for amplifying the EU's impact and agency in the Arctic. These alliances represent a powerful force multiplier, providing the EU with the leverage, capabilities, and shared values necessary to effectively address the challenges of "Arctic Meltdown" and to advance a common vision for a sustainable and rules-based Arctic order. These partnerships must be actively nurtured, deepened, and operationalized across all domains of Arctic policy, becoming the cornerstone of the EU's Arctic strategy.

Artificial Intelligence, deployed ethically and responsibly, emerges as a transformative enabler throughout this policy proposal. AI is not just a technological tool, but a powerful catalyst for achieving the EU's Arctic policy objectives, offering unprecedented potential to enhance environmental monitoring, strengthen security cooperation, drive sustainable innovation, and empower Arctic communities. The EU must seize the opportunity to become a global leader in ethical and beneficial AI deployment in the Arctic, ensuring that these technologies are harnessed responsibly and in a manner that aligns with its core values and contributes to a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable Arctic future for all.

And at the heart of this entire policy proposal lies an unwavering commitment to prioritizing the rights and well-being of Arctic Indigenous Peoples. They are not merely stakeholders, but the inherent rights holders, knowledge keepers, and frontline communities of the Arctic. Centering Indigenous Peoples, respecting their self-determination, protecting their cultures, and empowering their voices is not just a matter of social justice, but a foundational ethical responsibility for the EU and an indispensable element of any truly sustainable and equitable Arctic future.

The EU's Arctic Policy, framed around 'Arctic Meltdown,' offers a blueprint for a new paradigm of crisis governance – one that recognizes the deep interconnectedness of environmental, geopolitical, and social challenges. By acting decisively in the Arctic, the EU can develop and demonstrate a model for navigating the complex web of interconnected crises that will increasingly define the global landscape in the decades to come

In conclusion, this policy proposal is a call to action for the European Union to embrace a responsible, proactive, and strategically agile Arctic role. The "Arctic Meltdown" is not inevitable, but averting its worst consequences requires decisive and transformative action, guided by clear principles, focused priorities, strong partnerships, and a deep ethical commitment to the Arctic region and its people. The EU has the capacity, the values, and the strategic imperative to rise to this challenge. The future of the Arctic, and indeed the future of the planet, depends on it. Let this be the moment for the EU to demonstrate true Arctic leadership.

Appendix I: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for EU Arctic Policy Progress

To ensure accountability, track progress, and effectively evaluate the implementation and impact of the EU Arctic Policy outlined in this document, a robust framework of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is essential. This Appendix presents a set of measurable and relevant KPIs, aligned with the five core policy priorities, designed to monitor the EU's progress in navigating the challenges of "Arctic Meltdown" and achieving a sustainable, resilient, and just Arctic future. These KPIs are not exhaustive, but represent key indicators across each priority area, reflecting the core principles of Sustainability, Resilience, International Cooperation, and Inclusivity, and the cross-cutting themes of strategic partnerships, ethical AI deployment, and the centrality of Arctic Indigenous Peoples. Regular monitoring and evaluation of these KPIs will be crucial for adaptive policy management and ensuring the EU effectively fulfills its role as a responsible Arctic stakeholder in a rapidly changing world.

KPIs for Priority 1: Securing Arctic Peace and Stability

Measuring progress in securing Arctic peace and stability in the context of "Arctic Meltdown" requires indicators that reflect both proactive conflict prevention efforts and enhanced security cooperation, particularly with the UK and Norway. These KPIs focus on diplomatic engagement, maritime domain awareness, and resilience against hybrid threats.

KPI 1.1: Frequency of High-Level EU-Arctic State Diplomatic Engagements: Track the number of high-level (Ministerial or Head of State/Government) meetings and dialogues between EU representatives and Arctic states (including Russia and the US) annually, specifically focused on Arctic security issues and conflict prevention. (Focus: International Cooperation, Resilience, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPI 1.2: Joint EU-Norway-UK Maritime Domain Awareness Exercises: Measure the number of joint maritime exercises and coordinated operations conducted annually by the EU (through relevant member states), Norway, and the UK in the Arctic region, focused on maritime surveillance, search and rescue, and civilian security functions. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, Resilience, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPI 1.3: Cybersecurity Incident Response Time in Arctic Infrastructure: Track the average response time to cybersecurity incidents targeting critical infrastructure in EU Arctic member states and partner nations (Norway, Iceland, UK, Canada), aiming for a year-on-year reduction in response time. (Focus: Resilience, AI (for threat detection), Strategic Partnerships)

KPI 1.4: Public Perception of Arctic Security Stability (EU Member States): Conduct regular public opinion surveys in EU Arctic member states to gauge public perception of Arctic security and stability, aiming to maintain or improve positive perceptions despite geopolitical tensions. (Focus: Resilience, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPIs for Priority 2: Forging Strategic Arctic Partnerships

Progress in forging strategic Arctic partnerships is measured by indicators reflecting the depth and breadth of cooperation with Iceland, Norway, the UK, and Canada across various domains, including policy alignment, economic integration, research collaboration, and co-governance mechanisms.

KPI 2.1: Joint EU-Partner Arctic Policy Frameworks Developed: Track the number of joint EU-Iceland, EU-Norway, EU-UK, and EU-Canada Arctic policy frameworks, strategies, or action plans developed and implemented, demonstrating concrete policy alignment and coordinated action. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, International Cooperation)

KPI 2.2: Value of Joint EU-Partner Investments in Sustainable Arctic Blue Economy: Measure the total value of joint investments (public and private) made annually by the EU and its Arctic partners (Iceland, Norway, UK, Canada) in sustainable Arctic blue economy sectors (renewable energy, sustainable fisheries, green shipping, etc.). (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, Sustainability, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPI 2.3: Joint EU-Partner Arctic Research Programs Launched: Track the number of large-scale joint research programs and innovation initiatives launched annually by the EU and its Arctic partners, specifically focused on "Arctic Meltdown" mitigation, climate adaptation, and sustainable technologies. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, AI (for research), Sustainability, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPI 2.4: Functioning of Joint EU-Partner Indigenous Advisory Council: Establish metrics to assess the effective functioning and impact of the Joint EU-UK-Iceland-Norway-Canada Indigenous Advisory Council, including frequency of meetings, Indigenous participation rates, and evidence of Indigenous input influencing policy decisions. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, Inclusivity, Indigenous Peoples)

KPIs for Priority 3: Championing Sustainable Arctic Prosperity and Well-being

KPIs for sustainable Arctic prosperity and well-being focus on the development of sustainable infrastructure, the growth of the green technology sector, investments in human capital, and the empowerment of Arctic communities, ensuring a responsible and crisis-aware approach.

KPI 3.1: Investment in Trans-Arctic Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative: Measure the total annual investment (EU and partner contributions) in the Trans-Arctic Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative, tracking progress in deployment of renewable energy grids, sustainable transportation, digital connectivity, and social infrastructure in Arctic regions. (Focus: Sustainability, Strategic Partnerships, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPI 3.2: Growth of Arctic Green Technology Sector (Jobs and Revenue): Track the year-on-year growth in employment and revenue in the Arctic green technology sector (renewable energy, sustainable resource management, climate adaptation technologies) within EU Arctic member states and partner nations. (Focus: Sustainability, AI (for green tech), Strategic Partnerships)

KPI 3.3: Improvement in Arctic Community Well-being Indicators: Monitor key indicators of well-being in Arctic communities (e.g., health outcomes, education attainment, housing quality, food security, cultural vitality) in EU Arctic member states and partner nations, aiming for measurable improvements over time. (Focus: Sustainability, Inclusivity, Indigenous Peoples, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPI 3.4: Percentage of Tourism Operations Adhering to Sustainable Arctic Tourism Standards: Track the percentage of tourism operators in EU Arctic member states and partner nations that have adopted and are certified under recognized sustainable Arctic tourism standards, aiming for a significant increase over time. (Focus: Sustainability, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPIs for Priority 4: Centering Arctic Indigenous Peoples

Measuring progress in centering Arctic Indigenous Peoples requires KPIs that reflect the implementation of co-governance, the recognition and protection of Indigenous rights, increased direct support, the integration of Traditional Knowledge, and the addressing of social and economic disparities.

KPI 4.1: Indigenous Participation in EU Arctic Policy Decision-Making: Track the level and quality of Indigenous participation in EU Arctic policy decision-making processes, including representation in advisory bodies, consultation mechanisms, and co-governance initiatives. (Focus: Inclusivity, Indigenous Peoples, Strategic Partnerships)

KPI 4.2: Direct EU Funding to Arctic Indigenous Organizations: Measure the annual amount of direct and flexible EU funding allocated to Arctic Indigenous organizations and communities for self-determined development initiatives, cultural preservation, and capacity building. (Focus: Inclusivity, Indigenous Peoples)

KPI 4.3: Integration of Traditional Knowledge in EU Arctic Research & Policy: Develop qualitative and quantitative metrics to assess the extent and effectiveness of Traditional Knowledge integration in EU-funded Arctic research projects, environmental monitoring programs, and policy documents. (Focus: Inclusivity, Indigenous Peoples, AI (for TK integration))

KPI 4.4: Reduction in Socio-Economic Disparities in Arctic Indigenous Communities: Monitor key socio-economic disparity indicators (e.g., income levels, employment rates, access to services) in Arctic Indigenous communities within EU member states and partner nations, aiming for a measurable reduction in disparities over time. (Focus: Inclusivity, Indigenous Peoples, "Arctic Meltdown")

KPIs for Priority 5: Embracing Canada as a Transatlantic Partner

KPIs for the EU-Canada partnership focus on policy alignment, security cooperation, joint initiatives in climate action and sustainable development, and collaboration on Indigenous rights and AI.

KPI 5.1: Formal EU-Canada Arctic Cooperation Agreements: Track the number of formal agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), or joint declarations established between the EU and Canada specifically focused on Arctic cooperation across various domains. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, International Cooperation)

KPI 5.2: Joint EU-Canada Arctic Climate Action Initiatives: Measure the number and scale of joint EU-Canada initiatives launched annually focused on Arctic climate change research, green technology development, sustainable infrastructure, and climate adaptation. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, Sustainability, AI (for climate action), "Arctic Meltdown")

KPI 5.3: EU-Canada Collaboration on Arctic Indigenous Rights (Joint Initiatives): Track the number of joint EU-Canada initiatives and collaborative projects specifically focused on advancing the rights and well-being of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, including co-governance, TK integration, and addressing disparities. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, Inclusivity, Indigenous Peoples)

KPI 5.4: Transatlantic EU-Canada Arctic AI and Data Initiative Progress: Establish metrics to assess the progress and impact of the Transatlantic EU-Canada Arctic AI and Data Initiative, including joint research publications, shared data platforms established, and technology/researcher exchange programs implemented. (Focus: Strategic Partnerships, AI, International Cooperation)

Cross-Cutting KPI: Ethical and Responsible AI Deployment in the Arctic

Across all policy priorities, the ethical and responsible deployment of AI is paramount. A cross-cutting KPI will monitor the EU's adherence to ethical AI principles in its Arctic policy.

KPI 6.1: Implementation of Ethical AI Framework for EU Arctic Policy: Assess the degree of implementation and adherence to the Ethical AI Framework for EU Arctic Policy (to be developed as part of this policy implementation), measured through regular audits, stakeholder consultations, and public reporting on ethical AI considerations in EU Arctic projects and initiatives. (Focus: AI Ethics, Inclusivity, Sustainability, Resilience, International Cooperation)

This framework of KPIs should be subject to periodic review and refinement to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness in tracking the EU's progress towards a sustainable, resilient, and just Arctic future in the face of "Arctic Meltdown."

Appendix II: Suggested Framework for AI Transparency in EU Arctic Initiatives

Recognizing the transformative power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its central role in achieving the objectives of the EU Arctic Policy, this section presents a Suggested Framework for AI Transparency in EU Arctic Initiatives. This framework outlines proposed principles and concrete measures that the European Union could adopt to uphold high standards of transparency in the development, deployment, and governance of AI technologies within the Arctic context, as envisioned by this policy proposal. In the face of "Arctic Meltdown" and the increasing reliance on AI to navigate its complexities, ensuring transparency is not merely a procedural matter, but a fundamental imperative for building public trust, fostering accountability, mitigating potential risks, and ensuring that AI serves the common good of the Arctic region and its diverse inhabitants, particularly Arctic Indigenous Peoples. This Suggested Framework for AI Transparency is intended to provide a basis for discussion and further development, offering concrete ideas for how the EU could ensure openness, accountability, and trust in its Arctic AI initiatives, working in close collaboration with its strategic partners and in genuine partnership with Arctic communities.

Core Principles of AI Transparency in the Arctic:

The EU's commitment to AI transparency in the Arctic is guided by the following core principles, which will inform all aspects of its AI policy and implementation:

Explainability and Understandability: The EU will strive for explainable and understandable AI systems deployed in the Arctic, ensuring that the decision-making processes of AI technologies are as transparent and comprehensible as possible to relevant stakeholders, including policymakers, Arctic communities, and the wider public. This includes promoting research into explainable AI (XAI) techniques and prioritizing the use of AI models that are inherently more interpretable, particularly in high-stakes Arctic applications such as environmental monitoring, crisis response, and resource management.

Accountability and Responsibility: The EU will establish clear lines of accountability and responsibility for the development, deployment, and impact of AI systems in the Arctic. This includes defining clear roles and responsibilities for developers, deployers, and operators of AI technologies, establishing mechanisms for redress and accountability in case of unintended consequences or harms, and ensuring that human oversight and intervention remain central to AI governance in the Arctic.

Ethical and Transparent Data Governance: Recognizing that data is the lifeblood of AI, the EU will champion ethical and transparent data governance practices for all data used in Arctic AI systems. This includes ensuring data privacy and security, adhering to robust data protection standards (such as GDPR), promoting data sharing and interoperability where appropriate and ethically sound, and upholding Indigenous data sovereignty principles, ensuring Indigenous ownership and control over their data and Traditional Knowledge used in AI applications.

Public Access to Information and Openness: The EU will promote public access to information about its Arctic AI initiatives and foster a culture of openness and transparency in its AI-related activities. This includes proactively publishing information about EU-funded Arctic AI projects, making relevant data and research findings publicly accessible (where ethically and legally permissible), and engaging in open dialogue and public consultation on the development and deployment of AI in the Arctic region.

Independent Oversight and Auditability: To further enhance transparency and accountability, the EU will explore mechanisms for independent oversight and auditability of key AI systems deployed in the Arctic. This could include establishing independent ethical review boards for high-risk Arctic AI applications, supporting independent audits of AI system performance and impact, and promoting external scrutiny and evaluation of the EU's overall approach to AI in the Arctic.

Concrete Measures for Enhancing AI Transparency in the Arctic:

To operationalize these core principles, the EU will implement a range of concrete measures to enhance AI transparency in its Arctic policy, including:

Developing EU Guidelines for Transparent and Responsible AI in the Arctic: The EU will develop specific guidelines and best practices for ensuring transparency and responsibility in the development and deployment of AI technologies within the Arctic context. These guidelines will be informed by ethical principles, legal frameworks, and stakeholder consultations, and will provide practical guidance for researchers, developers, policymakers, and businesses involved in Arctic AI initiatives.

Promoting Open-Source AI and Data Sharing (where appropriate): Where ethically and legally permissible, and where it enhances transparency and collaboration, the EU will actively promote the use of open-source AI tools, models, and datasets in its Arctic initiatives. This includes supporting the development of open Arctic data platforms (while respecting data sovereignty), encouraging the sharing of non-sensitive data and algorithms, and fostering a culture of open science and collaborative innovation in Arctic AI research and development.

Establishing Mechanisms for Public Consultation and Feedback: The EU will establish clear and accessible mechanisms for public consultation and feedback on its Arctic AI policies and initiatives. This includes conducting public consultations on proposed AI deployments, establishing online platforms for public input and dialogue, and actively engaging with Arctic communities, civil society organizations, and Indigenous Peoples to solicit their views and concerns regarding AI in the Arctic.

Ensuring Accessible Documentation and Explainability Resources: For all EU-supported AI systems deployed in the Arctic, the EU will require and facilitate the creation of clear, accessible, and user-friendly documentation explaining the purpose, functionality, limitations, and potential impacts of these systems. This includes providing resources and tools to enhance the explainability of AI systems, particularly for non-technical audiences, and ensuring that information about AI systems is available in relevant Arctic languages.

Supporting Independent Audits and Impact Assessments: For high-risk AI applications in the Arctic, particularly those with potential environmental, social, or ethical implications, the EU will support independent audits and impact assessments to evaluate their performance, fairness, transparency, and adherence to ethical guidelines. These audits will be conducted by independent experts and their findings will be made publicly available to enhance accountability and inform ongoing policy development.

Transparency in Partnerships and Indigenous Engagement:

The EU recognizes that AI transparency is particularly crucial in the context of its strategic partnerships with Iceland, Norway, the UK, and Canada and its commitment to centering Arctic Indigenous Peoples. The EU will actively promote transparency in all joint AI initiatives with its partners, ensuring shared ethical frameworks, open data sharing protocols (where agreed), and joint mechanisms for public engagement and accountability. Furthermore, the EU will ensure that its AI transparency efforts are fully aligned with the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Indigenous data sovereignty, actively engaging with Arctic Indigenous Peoples to co-develop transparency mechanisms that are culturally appropriate, respect Indigenous protocols, and empower Indigenous communities to understand and oversee the use of AI in their territories and in relation to their knowledge and data.

By resolutely upholding these principles and implementing these concrete measures, the European Union aims to establish a gold standard for AI transparency in the Arctic region. This commitment to openness, accountability, and trust will be essential for fostering public confidence in Arctic AI, ensuring its responsible and ethical deployment, and maximizing its potential to contribute to a sustainable, resilient, and just future for the Arctic and all its inhabitants in the face of "Arctic Meltdown."

AI Transparency Section

AI Assistance in the Creation of This Policy Proposal: Transparency, Ethical Practice, and Expert Rigor

To ensure transparency and uphold ethical standards in policy scholarship, this section acknowledges AI's role in developing the "Navigating Arctic Meltdown: A Proactive and Principled EU Arctic Policy Proposal." This disclosure reflects the policy's own emphasis on responsible AI in the Arctic. AI tools enhanced the proposal's research, conceptualization, and articulation, increasing its precision and comprehensiveness.

Scope of AI Assistance

Advanced AI platforms—Google Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental with Apps and Microsoft Copilot Pro (with "Think Deeper" function activated) —were strategically used to navigate the complex, multidisciplinary Arctic policy landscape. AI Deep Dream Generator created royalty-free visuals. These tools augmented expert policy development by:

Rapid Information Synthesis: Accelerating the aggregation of policy documents, research, and best practices.
Concept Refinement: Rigorously refining policy concepts and ensuring logical consistency.
Policy Language Optimization: Crafting clear, concise, and impactful policy language. Structure and Cohesion Enhancement: Improving document organization and logical flow.
Gap Identification: Proactively identifying policy gaps and inconsistencies.

Ethical Considerations and Scholarly Integrity

AI was used to augment, not replace, expert work. Maintaining scholarly integrity was paramount. AI outputs were rigorously reviewed, validated, and thoughtfully integrated to align with policy principles, geopolitical realities, and ethical considerations.

Originality and Expert Policy Oversight

Recognizing AI's limitations in nuanced, innovative policy design, vigilant expert oversight was applied. AI-suggested concepts and recommendations were systematically corroborated against established geopolitical analysis, climate science, sustainability, and ethics. This ensured the proposal reflects original expert thought and genuine intellectual depth beyond AI capabilities.

Bias Awareness and Mitigation

To mitigate potential AI biases, expert review focused on ensuring policy neutrality, objectivity, and ethical adherence. Fairness, inclusivity, and ethical data governance were prioritized in sensitive areas like governance and Indigenous engagement.

Transparency and Ethical Standards

Explicitly acknowledging AI assistance aligns with ethical guidelines for AI in expert policy work. This transparency demonstrates scholarly honesty and fosters trust, mirroring the policy's focus on responsible Arctic stewardship and technological innovation.

Reflections on AI's Role in Expert Policy Scholarship

AI integration highlights the evolving nature of expert policy scholarship in the digital age. It demonstrates AI's potential to enhance efficiency and rigor when guided by human judgment, expertise, and ethics.

AI efficiently managed a complex interdisciplinary landscape, allowing experts to focus on strategic design, problem-solving, and nuanced synthesis. However, core vision, analysis, solutions, and judgments remain rooted in irreplaceable human expertise.

Commitment to Human-Centered Expert Policy Scholarship

This process reaffirms human agency, intuition, and ethics in expert policy work. While AI augments research and documentation, ultimate responsibility for critical thinking, ethical choices, and original contributions rests with human experts. This proposal exemplifies embracing technology to enhance, not diminish, expert rigor.

Confluence of Ethics and Innovation

AI integration mirrors the policy's core mission: harmonizing technological innovation with ethical imperatives in the Arctic. It reflects responsible AI deployment driving progress on complex global challenges like "Arctic Meltdown."

Advancing Holistic Expert Policy Understanding

Transparency about AI assistance and unwavering ethical rigor enhance this proposal's credibility and relevance. It exemplifies evolving policy scholarship where human expertise and responsible technology converge to advance holistic understanding. This transparency strengthens policy discourse and models responsible AI engagement in expert policy research and development. The AI-augmented journey underscores the transformative potential of merging technology and human expertise to address pressing global challenges.

References

Aaltola, M., K?pyl?, J., Mikkola, H., & Behr, T. (2014). Towards the geopolitics of flows. FIIA report, 40.

About Arctic SDI. (2025). Retrieved from: https://arctic-sdi.org/about-arctic-sdi/

Abramov, V. M., Istomin, E. P., Sokolov, A. G., Novikov, V. V., & Yaily, E. A. (2019). Application of blockchain and big data technologies within geo-information support for arctic projects. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM, 19(2.1), 753-759.

Affleck, R. T., Zubeck, H., & Canals, M. C. P. (2013). Integrating Capacity Building for Arctic Infrastructure Development. In ISCORD 2013: Planning for Sustainable Cold Regions (pp. 731-741).

Ahmad, T., Saeed, S., & Kukreti, M. (2024). Shifting Priorities: Global Geopolitical Events and the EU's Foreign Policy Approach to Sustainable Development. Journal Of Climate and Community Development, 3(2), 53-68.

Airoldi, A. (2008). The European Union and the Arctic: policies and actions.

Aksenov, Y., Popova, E. E., Yool, A., Nurser, A. G., Williams, T. D., Bertino, L., & Bergh, J. (2017). On the future navigability of Arctic sea routes: High-resolution projections of the Arctic Ocean and sea ice. Marine Policy, 75, 300-317.

Alcaide-Fernández, J. (2018). The European Union, the Arctic, and International Law. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 33(2), 267-289.

Aldegren, J. (2024). Enhancing Sámi Participation in EU Arctic Policymaking: Lessons from the Arctic Council.

Aleksandrov, E., & Dybtsyna, E. (2024). Smart cities for a sustainable Arctic? Introducing critical debate. Polar Geography, 47(2), 106-126.

Almada, M., & Radu, A. (2024). The Brussels side-effect: how the AI act can reduce the global reach of EU policy. German Law Journal, 25(4), 646-663.

Almada, M., & Petit, N. (2025). The EU AI Act: Between the rock of product safety and the hard place of fundamental rights. Common market law review, 62(1).

Alza, J. Artificial Intelligence as a Decision-Making Tool for Sustainable Arctic Development.

Atobatele, A. J., & Olaleye, S. A. (2024). Policy Interventions on Arctic Marine Ecosystems and Regulatory Framework. In Arctic Marine Ecotoxicology (pp. 515-537). Springer, Cham.

AMAP. (2015). AMAP Assessment 2015: Black Carbon and Ozone as Arctic Climate Forcers. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2015-black-carbon-and-ozone-as-arctic-climate-forcers/1299

AMAP. (2017). Arctic Climate Change Update 2019: An Update to Key Findings of Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-climate-change-update-2019/1761

Andreassen, N., & Borch, O. J. (Eds.). (2020). Crisis and emergency management in the Arctic: Navigating complex environments. Routledge.

Arbo, P., Iversen, A., Knol, M., Ringholm, T., & Sander, G. (2013). Arctic futures: Conceptualizations and images of a changing Arctic. Polar Geography, 36(3), 163-182.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. (2004). Arctic Council. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/54

Arctic Coast Guard Forum. (2025). About the Arctic Coast Guard Forum. Retrieved from https://www.arcticcoastguardforum.com/about-acgf

Arctic Council. (2011). Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic. Arctic Council Secretariat. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/items/9c343a3f-cc4b-4e75-bfd3-4b318137f8a2

Arctic Council. (2013). AGREEMENT on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/items/ee4c9907-7270-41f6-b681-f797fc81659f

Arctic Council (2004): Arctic marine strategic plan. Akureyri: Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) International Secretariat.

Arctic Council. (2016). Arctic Resilience Report 2016. Arctic Council Secretariat. https://mediamanager.sei.org/documents/Publications/ArcticResilienceReport-2016.pdf

Arctic Council. (1996). Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/85

Arctic Council. (2019). Expert Group on Black Carbon and Methane: Summary of Progress and Recommendations 2019. Arctic Council Secretariat. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/items/26597327-65d7-44f2-ae30-9abc61fdabac

Arctic Council. (2022). Joint Statement on the Suspension of Arctic Council Activities Involving Russia. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2022/03/joint-statement-on-arctic-council-cooperation-following-russias-invasion-of-ukraine.html

Arctic Council (2013): Summary for policy-makers. Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013.

The Arctic Institute. (2016). Arctic search and rescue zones [Map]. The Arctic Institute. Retrieved from https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Arctic-Search-and-Rescue-Zones-high-res.jpg

The Arctic Institute. (2023). The Pentagon's new upside-down Arctic map. The Arctic Institute. Retrieved from https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/pentagons-new-upside-down-arctic-map/

Arkema, K. K., Guannel, G., Verutes, G., Wood, S. A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., ... & Silver, J. M. (2013). Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature climate change, 3(10), 913-918.

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Global environmental change, 21(3), 995-1004.

Arruda, G. M., & Johannsdottir, L. (2021). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Arctic: The New Frontiers of Business, Management, and Enterprise. Routledge.

Bal, A. R. Z. U., Dalaklis, D., Bartuseviciene, I., & Ba?ar, E. R. S. A. N. (2024). Discussing the Influence of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict in the High North. AYIL-American Yearbook of International Law, 2(1).

Bambulyak, A., Larsen, L. H., R?dven, R., Moiseev, D., & Dahle, S. (2022). Issues of environmental monitoring and management in the arctic. In Global Development in the Arctic (pp. 197-215). Routledge.

Banda, O. A. V., Kannos, S., Goerlandt, F., van Gelder, P. H., Bergstr?m, M., & Kujala, P. (2019). A systemic hazard analysis and management process for the concept design phase of an autonomous vessel. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 191, 106584.

Banerjee, S. (2012). Arctic voices: Resistance at the tipping point. Seven Stories Press.

Barala, H. (2021). INDIA AND THE ARCTIC: Analysing the International Treaty Law framework applicable in the Arctic and ascertaining India’s State Practice.

Barnes, A., & Waters, C. (2012). The Arctic Environment and International Humanitarian Law. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, 49, 213-241.

Bartenstein, K. (2011). The “Arctic exception” in the Law of the Sea Convention: A contribution to safer navigation in the Northwest Passage?. Ocean Development & International Law, 42(1-2), 22-52.

Bennett, M. M. (2014). North by Northeast: toward an Asian-Arctic region. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 55(1), 71-93.

Bensassi, S., Stroeve, J. C., Martínez-Zarzoso, I., & Barrett, A. P. (2016). Melting ice, growing trade?. Elementa, 4, 000107.

Berkes, F., & Armitage, D. (2010). Co-management institutions, knowledge, and learning: Adapting to change in the Arctic. études/Inuit/Studies, 34(1), 109-131.

Berkes, F. (2012). Implementing ecosystem‐based management: Evolution or revolution?. Fish and Fisheries, 13(4), 465-476.

Berkes, F. (2017). Sacred ecology. Routledge.

Berkman, P. A., Vylegzhanin, A. N., & Young, O. R. (Eds.). (2020). Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea. Springer.

Bertelsen, R. G. (2025). Divided Arctic in a Divided World Order.

Bertelsen, R. G., & Gallucci, V. F. (2016). The return of China, post-Cold War Russia, and the Arctic: Changes on land and at sea. Marine Policy, 72, 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.034

Bedoya Taborda, L. F., Barnes, M. L., & Morrison, T. H. (2025). Adaptation and Peace: Extending the Agenda for Capacity‐Building in Climate and Conflict‐Affected Communities. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 16(1), e921.

Bhagwat, J., & Bisen, A. (2025). India and The Arctic States. In Evolution of India's Polar Policies (pp. 97-152). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Bhattacharya, P. (2025). Sustaining Traditions, Nurturing Resilience: Community and Indigenous Approaches to Climate Challenges. In Sustainable Synergy: Harnessing Ecosystems for Climate Resilience (pp. 149-163). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Bochkarev, D. (2013). The Arctic Governance and EU" Soft Power. Energy Security and Geopolitics in the Arctic. Singapore.

Biresselioglu, M. E., Demir, M. H., Solak, B., Kayacan, A., & Altinci, S. (2020). Investigating the trends in arctic research: The increasing role of social sciences and humanities. Science of the Total Environment, 729, 139027.

Bluhm, B. A., Gebruk, A. V., Gradinger, R., Hopcroft, R. R., Huettmann, F., Kosobokova, K. N., ... & Weslawski, J. M. (2011). Arctic marine biodiversity: an update of species richness and examples of biodiversity change. Oceanography, 24(3), 232-248.

Bohlmann, U. M., & Koller, V. F. (2020). ESA and the Arctic-The European Space Agency's contributions to a sustainable Arctic. Acta Astronautica, 176, 33-39.

Borg, J. (2009, January). The European Union’s strategy of sustainable management for the Arctic. In Arctic Frontiers Conference.

Borgerson, S. G. (2008). Arctic meltdown-The economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Aff., 87, 63.

Borgerson, S. G. (2013). The Coming Arctic Boom: As the Ice Melts, the Region Heats Up. Foreign Affairs, 92(4), 76–89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23526909

Borisov, A. I. (2024). Modern IT solutions for household waste management in the Arctic region. In BIO Web of Conferences (Vol. 116, p. 03001). EDP Sciences.

Boylan, B. M. (2021). Increased maritime traffic in the Arctic: Implications for governance of Arctic sea routes. Marine Policy, 131, 104566.

Brady, A.-M. (2017). China as a Polar Great Power. Cambridge University Press.

Bremnes, J. E. (2019). Towards robust autonomy of underwater vehicles in Arctic operations (Master's thesis, NTNU).

Brigham, L. W. (2017). The changing maritime Arctic and new marine operations. In Governance of Arctic shipping (pp. 1-23). Brill Nijhoff.

Budakoti, S. B., Saini, D., Rana, K., Bahuguna, D., & Mittal, T. LOSING BIODIVERSITY: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

Buixadé Farré, A., Stephenson, S. R., Chen, L., Copping, A., & et al. (2014). Commercial Arctic shipping through the Northeast Passage: Routes, resources, governance, technology, and infrastructure. Polar Geography, 37(4), 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2014.965769

Bukhari, S. R. H., Jalal, S. U., Ali, M., Haq, I. U., & Irshad, A. U. R. B. (2025). America First 2.0: Assessing the Global Implications of Donald Trump's Second Term. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(1), 51-63.

Byers, M. (2010). Who owns the Arctic?: Understanding sovereignty disputes in the North. Douglas & McIntyre.

Bylia, K. (2021). The role of Russia in the cultural cooperation in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region (Master's thesis).

Byers, M. (2013). International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press.

Calderwood, C., & Ulmer, F. A. (2023). The Central Arctic Ocean fisheries moratorium: A rare example of the precautionary principle in fisheries management. Polar Record, 59, e1.

Campo-Ruiz, I. (2025). Artificial intelligence may affect diversity: architecture and cultural context reflected through ChatGPT, Midjourney, and Google Maps. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-13.

Camus, L., Pedersen, G., Falk-Petersen, S., Dunlop, K., Daase, M., Basedow, S. L., ... & Dahle, S. (2019, June). Autonomous surface and underwater vehicles reveal new discoveries in the Arctic Ocean. In OCEANS 2019-Marseille (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

Canova, E., Escudé-Joffres, C., Raspotnik, A., & Vidal, F. (2022). European Policies in the Arctic: National Strategies or a Common Vision?. In Arctic Fever: Political, Economic & Environmental Aspects (pp. 305-332). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Canuel, E. T. (2014). The four Arctic law pillars: A legal framework. Geo. J. Int'l L., 46, 735.

Chaber, W. (2024). The Arctic in the international system: a shift from a low-tension area to a region of global rivalry.

Chade, D., Miklis, T., & Dvorak, D. (2015). Feasibility study of wind-to-hydrogen system for Arctic remote locations–Grimsey island case study. Renewable Energy, 76, 204-211.

Charron, A. (2020). NATO and the Geopolitical Future of the Arctic. Arctic Yearbook, 1-10.

Choudhry, H. S. ANALYZING THE GROWING COMPETITION AMONG CHINA, RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE ARCTIC REGION.

Chuffart, R., Raspotnik, A., & St?pień, A. (2021). Our common arctic? A more sustainable EU-arctic nexus in light of the European green deal. The Polar Journal, 11(2), 284-302.

Ciasullo, J. M. (2021). Winning the battle but losing the war: why the Lomonosov Ridge and Svalbard disputes remain peaceful (Master's thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, ?s).

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, & Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora. (2017). State of the Arctic marine biodiversity report. Government Printing Office.

Cloke, J. (2025). Eschatological Geographies—Mass Consumption, Uncontrolled Waste and the Capitalist False Prophet. Geography Compass, 19(3), e70021.

Coates, Ken & Holroyd, Carin. (2022). Arctic Innovation and the Potential for the Creation of a Circumpolar Innovation Ecosystem. 10.4324/9781003246015-9.

?OMAK, H., ?EKER, B. ?., & ULTAN, M. ?. (Eds.). (2022). Global maritime geopolitics (Vol. 11). Transnational Press London.

Coudriet, C. N., & Reinert, K. A. (2025). Human Capital and Growth in Arctic Regional Economies: Evidence, Policies and Institutional Perspectives. Law and Development Review, 18(1), 185-213.

Copernicus Climate Change Service. (2025). Sea ice cover January 2025. Copernicus Climate Change Service. Retrieved from https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-cover-january-2025

Costa, H., & Mendon?a, J. (2025). Assessing European Union Member States’ Implementation of the Artificial Intelligence Act. In Human-Centred Technology Management for a Sustainable Future: Volume 2: Technologies for a Sustainable Future, Proceedings of the 33rd IAMOT Conference, Porto, Portugal, 2024 (p. 243). Springer Nature.

Davidson, J. (2019). Trump proposes buying Greenland. Guardian (Sydney), (1882), 9.

DAMSKI, P. P. The cases of Alaska and Svalbard as an example of Russian withdrawal from the concept of Arctic Exceptionalism after 22 February, 2022. Journal of the Institute for Western Affairs in Poznań, 41.

De la Fayette, L. A. (2008). Oceans governance in the Arctic. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 23(3), 531-566.

de Melo Cartaxo, T., Castilla, J. M., Dymet, M., & Hossain, K. (2021). Digitalization and smartening sustainable city development: an investigation from the high north European cities. Smart Cities and Regional Development (SCRD) Journal, 5(1), 83-101.

Devyatkin, P. (2023). Arctic exceptionalism: a narrative of cooperation and conflict from Gorbachev to Medvedev and Putin. The Polar Journal, 13(2), 336-357.

Dietz, R., Letcher, R. J., Aars, J., Andersen, M., Boltunov, A., Born, E. W., ... & Sonne, C. (2022). A risk assessment review of mercury exposure in Arctic marine and terrestrial mammals. Science of the Total Environment, 829, 154445.

DiMento, J. F., & Pierucci, J. (2025). Arctic Law: Even More Sustainable? Roles of the US and EU. UMKC Law Review, Forthcoming, UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper, (2025-03).

Dimitrios, D., & Baxevani, E. (2016). Arctic in the global warming phenomenon era: New maritime routes & geopolitical tensions. New maritime routes: origins, evolution and prospects, 169-186.

Dinardo, S., Restano, M., Ambrózio, A., & Benveniste, J. (2016, March). SAR altimetry processing on demand service for CryoSat-2 and Sentinel-3 at ESA G-POD. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference on Big Data from Space (BiDS’16), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain (pp. 15-17).

Dittmer, J., Moisio, S., Ingram, A., & Dodds, K. (2011). Have you heard the one about the disappearing ice? Recasting Arctic geopolitics. Political Geography, 30(4), 202-214.

Dodds, K. J. (2013). Anticipating the Arctic and the Arctic Council: pre-emption, precaution and preparedness. Polar Record, 49(2), 193-203.

Dodds, K. (2010). Flag Planting and Finger Pointing: The Law of the Sea, the Arctic and the Political Geographies of the Outer Continental Shelf. Political Geography, 29(2), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.02.004

Done, C. G. (2020, October). The Arctic Security System–The Stakes in the Battle for Power. In Romanian Military Thinking International Scientific Conference Proceedings. Military Strategy Coordinates under the Circumstances of a Synergistic Approach to Resilience in the Security Field (pp. 226-237). Centrul tehnic-editorial al armatei.

Drengson, A. (eds) (2005). Deep Ecology and Conservation Biology. In: The Selected Works of Arne Naess. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4519-6_113

Duran-Fernandez, R. (2025). North America?s Geopolitical and Economic Playbook Under Trump?s Second Term.

Durante, F. (2018). Russia's international energy cooperation: the Yamal LNG case (Master's thesis).

Dyck, C. (2024). Arctic Governance in the Face of Climate Change: A Case for “Inclusive Regionalism”. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, 1-26.

Ebinger, C. K., & Zambetakis, E. (2009). The geopolitics of Arctic melt. International Affairs, 85(6), 1215-1232.

Eikeland, S. (2024). Lessons from Contemporary Regional Institutions in Arctic Landscapes.

Elmore, J. S. (2021). RUSSIA’S CONTRADICTORY ARCTIC STRATEGIES: COOPERATION, CONFLICT, AND EVERYTHING IN-BETWEEN (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School).

Esau, I., Pettersson, L. H., Cancet, M., Chapron, B., Chernokulsky, A., Donlon, C., ... & Johannesen, J. A. (2023). The arctic amplification and its impact: A synthesis through satellite observations. Remote Sensing, 15(5), 1354.

Escudé, C. (2016). The Strength of Flexibility: The Arctic Council in the Arctic Norm-Setting Process. 2016 Arctic Yearbook, 48-60

Eurasian Geopolitics. (2023). Arctic maps. Eurasian Geopolitics. Retrieved from https://eurasiangeopolitics.com/arctic-maps/

European Commission. (2021). Horizon Europe. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en

European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. (2021). A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic. (JOIN(2021) 27 final). https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Joint%20Communication%20on%20a%20stronger%20EU%20engagement%20for%20a%20peaceful%2C%20sustainable%20and%20prosperous%20Arctic.pdf.pdf

European Commission. (2021). European Regional Development Fund. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/erdf_en

European Environment Agency. (2023). Arctic continental shelf claims [Map]. European Environment Agency. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/arctic-continental-shelf-claims

European Environment Agency. (2024). The Arctic region in relation to European Countries. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/the-arctic-region

European Parliamentary Research Service. (2024). Arctic policy of the European Union. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2024)754604

European Space Agency. (2019). Copernicus: The Sentinel Satellite Missions. Retrieved from https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Overview4

European Space Agency. (2017). ESA affirms Open Access policy for images, videos and data. https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Digital_Agenda/ESA_affirms_Open_Access_policy_for_images_videos_and_data

European Union. (2025). EU AI Act. Retrieved from: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

The European Union (2022). The EU Cyberdefence Policy. Retrieved from https://www.european-cyber-defence-policy.com/

European Union. (2020). The EU Cybersecurity Strategy. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cybersecurity-strategy

Exner-Pirot, H. (2013). What Is the Arctic a Case of? The Arctic as a Regional Environmental Security Complex and the Implications for Policy. Polar Journal, 3(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2013.766006

Fahd, F., Yang, M., Khan, F., & Veitch, B. (2021). A food chain-based ecological risk assessment model for oil spills in the Arctic environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 166, 112164.

Falk-Petersen, J., Paul Renaud, Natalia Anisimova, Establishment and ecosystem effects of the alien invasive red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in the Barents Sea–a review, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 68, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 479–488, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsq192

Far North Fiber. (nd). Submarine Cable Networks. https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/trans-arctic/far-north-fiber

Fernández, J., Fernández, C., Féménias, P., & Peter, H. (2016, October). The copernicus sentinel-3 mission. In ILRS workshop (pp. 1-4).

Fondahl, G., Lazebnik, O., Poelzer, G., & Robbek, V. (2001). Native ‘land claims’, Russian style. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 45(4), 545-561.

Forbes, B. C. (2013). Cultural Resilience of Social–Ecological Systems in the Nenets and Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs, Russia: A Focus on Reindeer Nomads of the Tundra. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05791-180436

Forbes, B. C., Stammler, F., Kumpula, T., Meschtyb, N., Pajunen, A., & Kaarlej?rvi, E. (2009). High Resilience in the Yamal-Nenets Social–Ecological System, West Siberian Arctic, Russia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(52), 22041–22048. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908286106

Ford, J. D., McDowell, G., & Pearce, T. (2015). The adaptation challenge in the Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1046-1053.

Ford, J. D., Pearce, T., Canosa, I. V., & Harper, S. (2021). The rapidly changing Arctic and its societal implications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(6), e735.

Forsberg, R., Moyer, J., & K?hk?nen, A. (2022). Finland’s Contributions to NATO: Strengthening the Alliance’s Nordic and Arctic Fronts. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Fredrickson, A. L. (2015). The Ice-Free Arctic Is Coming: Why a Circumpolar Network of Marine Protected Areas Is Needed To Protect Arctic Fisheries from Climate Change. Drexel L. Rev., 8, 185.

Friedman, D. S. (2020). PERIPHERAL DESIGNS: CHINA’S PURSUIT OF NEAR-ARCTIC STATEHOOD AND THE RE-SHAPING OF GEOPOLITICS IN THE FAR NORTH (Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University).

Frow, J. (2023). On Intergenerational Justice. Australian Humanities Review, 71, 24-36.

Gardiner, S. M. (2015). A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford University Press.

Garland, A., Bukvic, A., & Maton-Mosurska, A. (2022). Capturing complexity: Environmental change and relocation in the North Slope Borough, Alaska. Climate Risk Management, 38, 100460.

Gartler, S., Scheer, J., Meyer, A., Abass, K., Bartsch, A., Doloisio, N., ... & Ingeman-Nielsen, T. (2025). A transdisciplinary, comparative analysis reveals key risks from Arctic permafrost thaw. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(1), 21.

Ghosh, S. K. (Ed.). (2009). Self-healing materials: fundamentals, design strategies, and applications (Vol. 18). Weinheim: Wiley-vch.

Giagnorio, M. (2024). The Actorness of the European Union in Arctic Policymaking.

Government of Canada. (1993). Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/R32-134-1993E.pdf

Greaves, W. (2016). Arctic (in)Security and Indigenous Peoples: Comparing Inuit in Canada and Saami in Norway. Security Dialogue, 47(6), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010616665957

Gricius, G. (2025). The Shortest Nuclear Route to Climate Change to Great Power Competition: Tracing Arctic Security. Ocean and Society, 2.

Grigorieva, E. A. (2024). Climate Change and Human Health in the Arctic: A Review. Climate, 12(7), 89.

Gupta, A. (2009). Geopolitical implications of Arctic meltdown.

Gustafson, T. (2025). Perfect Storm: Russia's Failed Economic Opening, the Hurricane of War and Sanctions, and the Uncertain Future. Oxford University Press.

H?kansson, C. (2021). The European Commission’s new role in EU security and defence cooperation: the case of the European Defence Fund. European Security, 30(4), 589-608.

Hadjipavlis, P., & Constantinou, C. (2024). Western strategic communications and the formation of geopolitics amidst the Ukrainian crisis. Market: International Journal of Business, 5.

Halpern, B. S., et al. (2008). A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 319(5865), 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149345

Hasan, A., Kramar, V., Hermansen, J., & Schultz, U. P. (2022, June). Development of resilient drones for harsh Arctic environment: challenges, opportunities, and enabling technologies. In 2022 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) (pp. 1227-1236). IEEE.

Heininen, L., Everett, K., Padrtova, B., & Reissell, A. (2020). Arctic Policies and Strategies—Analysis, Synthesis, and Trends.

Heininen, L. (2011 / 2012). Arctic strategies and policies: Inventory and comparative study. Northern Research Forum.

Henderson, J., & Mitrova, T. (2015). The Political and Commercial Dynamics of Russia’s Gas Export Strategy. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies Working Paper.

Henri, D. (2012). Managing nature, producing cultures: Inuit participation, science and policy in wildlife governance in the Nunavut Territory, Canada (Doctoral dissertation, Oxford University, UK).

Henry, L. A., Nysten-Haarala, S., Tulaeva, S., & Tysiachniouk, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and the oil industry in the Russian Arctic: Global no

Herrmann, T. M., Brunner Alfani, F., Chahine, A., Doering, N., Dudeck, S., Elster, J., ... & van der Schot, J. (2023). Comprehensive policy-brief to the EU Commission: roadmap to decolonial arctic research.

Hertell, H. H. (2008). Arctic melt: the tipping point for an Arctic Treaty. Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev., 21, 565.

Hintsala, H., Niemel?, S., & Tervonen, P. (2016). Arctic potential–Could more structured view improve the understanding of Arctic business opportunities?. Polar Science, 10(3), 450-457.

Holitschke, S. (2025). Arctic Frontiers: Balancing Economic Opportunities and Environmental Risks in a Rapidly Changing World. Part I. Linkedin. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-frontiers-balancing-economic-opportunities-risks-holitschke-pxzye/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Arctic Frontiers: Balancing Economic Opportunities and Environmental Risks in a Rapidly Changing World. Part II. Linkedin. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-frontiers-balancing-economic-opportunities-risks-holitschke-jqjoe/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Arctic Reckoning: Europe's Ethical Tech Mandate Part I. Linkedin. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-reckoning-europes-ethical-tech-mandate-stefan-holitschke-qre6e/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Arctic Reckoning: Europe's Ethical Tech Mandate Part II. Linkedin. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-reckoning-europes-ethical-tech-mandate-stefan-holitschke-hzu1e/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Arctic Renaissance: Catalyzing a Paradigm Shift Towards Planetary Symbiosis - Part I. Linkedin. Retrieved from: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-renaissance-catalyzing-paradigm-shift-towards-holitschke-ky0pe/?trackingId=rjH9LVJyQ%2BGvbJygJ6KiIQ%3D%3D

Holitschke, S. (2025). Arctic Renaissance: Catalyzing a Paradigm Shift Towards Planetary Symbiosis - Part II. Linkedin. Retrieved from: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-renaissance-catalyzing-paradigm-shift-towards-holitschke-otf1e/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Beyond Prediction: Arctic Climate Cartography with Quantum-Enhanced Graph Neural Networks for Emergent Ice Regime Discovery. Linkedin. Retrieved from: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/global-arctic-metaverse-ultra-deep-technical-polar-holitschke-1nvyf/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Global Arctic Data Trust: Ultra-Deep Technical Specification - A Quantum-Resistant, Scalable Blockchain Paradigm for Arctic Data Sovereignty. Linkedin. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/global-arctic-data-trust-ultra-deep-technical-stefan-holitschke-hb3ye/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Global Arctic Metaverse: Ultra-Deep Technical Specification - Virtual Reality for Polar Research, Education, and Conservation. Linkedin. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/global-arctic-metaverse-ultra-deep-technical-polar-holitschke-1nvyf/

Holitschke, S. (2025). The Arctic Arena: Navigating Geopolitical Tensions and Military Maneuvers in the 21st Century. Part I. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-arena-navigating-geopolitical-tensions-21st-stefan-holitschke-jgnje/

Holitschke, S. (2025). The Arctic Arena: Navigating Geopolitical Tensions and Military Maneuvers in the 21st Century. Part II. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/arctic-arena-navigating-geopolitical-tensions-21st-stefan-holitschke-946ce/

Holitschke, S. (2025). The Shamanic Path to Conscious and Ethical AI: Integrating Arctic Philosophies into Technology - Part I. LinkedIn. Retrieved from: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/shamanic-path-conscious-ethical-ai-integrating-arctic-holitschke-gqnwe/?trackingId=j1qet7PjSGuXXOaDWbdArg%3D%3D

Holitschke, S. (2025). The Shamanic Path to Conscious and Ethical AI: Integrating Arctic Philosophies into Technology - Part II. LinkedIn. Retrieved from: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/shamanic-path-conscious-ethical-ai-integrating-arctic-holitschke-iugje/?trackingId=9vRjNxf5Si2qXoCwTK1ZUA%3D%3D

Holitschke, S. (2025). Uncharted Waters: Navigating the Arctic's Promise and Peril in a Changing Global Landscape - Part I. LinkedIn. Retrieved from: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/uncharted-waters-navigating-arctics-promise-peril-part-holitschke-axqte/

Holitschke, S. (2025). Uncharted Waters: Navigating the Arctic's Promise and Peril in a Changing Global Landscape - Part II. LinkedIn. Retrieved from: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/2-uncharted-waters-navigating-arctics-promise-peril-holitschke-imdie/?trackingId=j6pB5Q1rRPG0oCCT8R0ewA%3D%3D

Holtsmark, S. G., & Smith-Windsor, B. A. (Eds.). (2009). Security prospects in the high north: geostrategic thaw or freeze?. Rome: NATO Defense College.

Hoel, A. H. (2009). Do we need a new legal regime for the Arctic Ocean?. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24(2), 443-456.

H?nneland, G. (2004). Russian fisheries management: The precautionary approach in theory and practice (Vol. 43). BRILL.

Hopcraft, R., & Martin, K. M. (2018). Effective maritime cybersecurity regulation–the case for a cyber code. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 14(3), 354-366.

Hossain, K. (2023). The precautionary principle in Arctic environmental governance. Arctic law in 1000 words.

Hossain, K., & Petrétei, A. (Eds.). (2016). Understanding the many faces of human security: perspectives of northern indigenous peoples (Vol. 13). Brill.

Hossain, M. (2025). CLIMATE DISASTER-RELATED DISPLACEMENT AND RESILIENCE. South Asian Economic Development in the Era of Global Turbulence, 123.

Huddleston, P., Smith, T., White, I., & Elrick-Barr, C. (2022). Adapting critical infrastructure to climate change: A scoping review. Environmental Science & Policy, 135, 67-76.

Huggan, G. (2016). Introduction: unscrambling the Arctic. Postcolonial perspectives on the European high north: Unscrambling the Arctic, 1-29.

Humpert, M. (2013). The future of Arctic shipping: A new silk road for China. Washington, DC: The Arctic Institute, 3.

Humpert, M. (2013). The future of Arctic shipping: A new silk road for China. The Arctic Institute. Center for Circumpolar Security Studies. Retrieved from https://www.thearcticinstitute. org/2013/11/the-future-of-arctic-shipping-new-silk.html .

Humrich, C., & Wolf, K. D. (2012). From Meltdown to Showdown?: challenges and options for governancein the Arctic.

Hursthouse, R. (2007). Environmental virtue ethics. Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems, 155-171.

IMO. (2017). International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). International Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/polar-code.aspx

IMO. (2021). Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). International Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/pages/MASSRSE2021.aspx

Inuit Circumpolar Council. (2015). Alaska Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to Assess the Arctic From an Inuit Perspective. Inuit Circumpolar Council-Alaska.

IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Ireland, M. (2003). Sustaining indigenous peoples in the wilderness areas of Scandinavia and North-West Russia. Scandinavian journal of hospitality and tourism, 3(1), 71-81.

IASC. (2020). International Arctic Science Committee Strategic Plan 2018–2023. International Arctic Science Committee. https://iasc.info/about/publications-documents/organisational-and-strategic/703-iasc-strategic-plan-2018-2023

Jalil, S. (2025). Toward an International Grundnorm for Climate Change: Ensuring Sustainability Away from the Traditional Notion of Security. Sustainability, 17(3), 1034.

Jennings, R. (1992). The role of the international court of justice in the development of international environment protection law. Rev. Eur. Comp. & Int'l Envtl. L., 1, 240.

Jensen, ?. (2016). The International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters: Finalization, Adoption and Law of the Sea Implications. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 60–82. doi. org/10.17585/arctic. v7, 236.

Jia-Yi, W. (2025). Arctic Cooperation under the BRICS Framework: Exploring the New Pattern of Arctic Scientific Cooperation and Arctic Governance. Research in Social Sciences, 8(1), 23-32.

Jin, D., Seo, W. S., & Lee, S. (2017). Arctic policy of the Republic of Korea. Ocean & Coastal LJ, 22, 85.

Joenniemi, P. (1999). The Barents Euro-Arctic Council. In Subregional Cooperation in the New Europe: Building Security, Prosperity and Solidarity from the Barents to the Black Sea (pp. 23-45). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Johansson, T., Donner, P., Johansson, T., & Donner, P. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Arctic. The Shipping Industry, Ocean Governance and Environmental Law in the Paradigm Shift: In Search of a Pragmatic Balance for the Arctic, 75-91.

Johnson, N., Behe, C., Danielsen, F., Krümmel, E. M., Nickels, S., & Pulsifer, P. L. (2016). Community-based monitoring and indigenous knowledge in a changing arctic: a review for the sustaining arctic observing networks. Sustain Arctic Observing Network Task, 9, 74.

Johnson, N., Pearce, T., Breton-Honeyman, K., Etiendem, D. N., & Loseto, L. L. (2020). Knowledge co-production and co-management of Arctic wildlife. Arctic Science, 6(3), 124-126.

Jouhier, S. (2024). The European Union’s Capacity to Act in the Arctic: Charting Degrees of EU Actorness in the European and Circumpolar Territories. College of Europe.

Jutz, S. L., & Milagro-Perez, M. P. (2016, August). Copernicus Space Component: A Growing Family. In Living Planet Symposium (Vol. 740, p. 6).

K?pyl?, J., & Mikkola, H. (2016). The promise of the geoeconomic Arctic: a critical analysis. Asia Europe Journal, 14, 203-220.

Kampmark, B. (2024). Greenland Redux: Trump and America's Continuing Obsession. International Policy Digest.

Kanwal, J., Khalid, M. A., & Liaqat, B. B. (2025). Climate Change and Geopolitics: How China’s Policies are Transforming Arctic Shipping. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 9(1), 106-115.

Karayel, T. (2023). Innovation Policy Roadmapping for the Future Finnish Smart Cities.

K?pyl?, J., & Mikkola, H. (2015). On Arctic Exceptionalism. Critical reflections in the light of the Arctic Sunrise case and the crisis in Ukraine. Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (Working paper 85), 1-22.

Kertysova, K., & Cricius, G. (2023). Countering Russia's Hybrid Threats in the Arctic. European Leadership Network.

Keskin, M. (2018). The emergence and evolution of the defense cooperation in European Union: permanent structured cooperation (Pesco) (Doctoral dissertation).

Khan, S. A., & Kulovesi, K. (2018). Black carbon and the Arctic: Global problem‐solving through the nexus of science, law and space. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 27(1), 5-14.

Khraiche, M., Lopez-Velasco, A. R., & Tondji, J. B. (2025). The use (and misuse) of tariffs in North America: A new trade war?. Available at SSRN 5145133.

Kindler, M. (2021). The EU, Climate Change and Geopolitics of the Arctic: Great Power Strategies and European Response (Master's thesis, ISCTE-Instituto Universitario de Lisboa (Portugal)).

Kirchner, S. (2022). Present and Future Arctic Law. Available at SSRN 4241055.

Kirchner, S., Mazzullo, N., Nebasifu, A. A., Lesser, P., Tulppo, P., Kyll?nen, K. M., & Heinrich, K. (2022). Towards a holistic cross-border environmental governance in the European Arctic. The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 9(2), 31-46.

Klaine, S. J., et al. (2012). Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.733

Klasa, K., Birge, H., Hossain, K., Kirchner, S., Palma-Oliveira, J., Merad, M., ... & Priya, S. (2020). Challenges in Establishing Legal Frameworks and Governance Options That Promote Arctic Cyber Resilience. In Cybersecurity and Resilience in the Arctic (pp. 321-360). IOS Press.

Knapp, G., & Morehouse, T. A. (1991). Alaska's North Slope Borough Revisited. Polar Record, 27(163), 303-312.

Koch, M. (2024). Global development in the Arctic: international cooperation for the future.

Koivurova, T., Kauppila, L., Kopra, S., Lanteigne, M., Shi, M., Smieszek, M., ... & Nojonen, M. (2019). China in the Arctic and the opportunities and challenges for Chinese-Finnish Arctic co-operation.

Koivurova, T. (2009). Governance of protected areas in the Arctic. Utrecht Law Review, 44-60.

Koivurova, Timo & Stepien, Adam. (2014). The European Union and the Arctic Region.

Koivurova, T., & Hein?m?ki, L. (2006). The participation of indigenous peoples in international norm-making in the Arctic. Polar Record, 42(2), 101-109.

Kondratenko, A. A., Kujala, P., & Hirdaris, S. E. (2023). Holistic and sustainable design optimization of Arctic ships. Ocean Engineering, 275, 114095.

Kop, M. (2021, September). Eu artificial intelligence act: The european approach to ai. Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments, Stanford University, Issue.

Kraska, J., & Baker, B. (2022). Emerging Arctic security challenges. Center for a New American Security.

Krishnan, K. P. & Rajan, S., (2016). India’s scientific endeavours in the Arctic. Asia and the Arctic: Narratives, perspectives and policies, 43-48.

Kruessmann, T. (2021). The Arctic as a Micro-Cosmos for Selective Engagement between the EU and Russia?. In Principled Pragmatism in Practice (pp. 290-310). Brill Nijhoff.

Laakkonen, M. P., Kivivirta, V., Calò, A., & Pongrácz, E. (2024). Smart Grid in the Arctic City: Historical, Technological, and Social Aspects of Evolution. Journal of Northern Studies, 16(2), 55-81.

Landriault, M., Chater, A., Rowe, E. W., & Lackenbauer, P. W. (2019). Governing complexity in the Arctic region. Routledge.

Lackenbauer, P. W., & Lalonde, S. (2017). Searching for Common Ground in Evolving Canadian and EU Arctic Strategies. In The European Union and the Arctic (pp. 119-171). Brill Nijhoff.

L?gaard, S. (2025). Trump, Territory and Greenland: Mixed Claims for Ownership

Lahtinen, J., Banda, O. A. V., Kujala, P., & Hirdaris, S. (2019). The risks of remote pilotage in an intelligent fairway–preliminary considerations. In Proceedings of the International Seminar on Safety and Security of Autonomous Vessels (ISSAV) and European STAMP Workshop and Conference (ESWC) (pp. 48-57).

Lalonde, S. (2020). Marine protected area networks at the Poles. In Research Handbook on Polar Law (pp. 346-370). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Landriault, M., & MacDonald, A. (2019). Debating Arctic security through a media lens–The case of NATO’s Trident Juncture operation. Arctic Yearbook.

Lawlor, A. H. (2021). Indigenous Rights in International Law: A Focus on Extraction in the Arctic.

Lebel, J., & Nilsson, A. E. (2024). EU Engagement in the Arctic. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 15, 47-71.

Le Hoang, K., Tran, H. X., Nguyen, P. H., & Tran, T. D. (2025). Shifting World Order: The Ukraine Conflict and Great Power Competition in Contemporary Geopolitics. In International Relations Dynamics in the 21st Century: Security, Conflicts, and Wars (pp. 127-154). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

Leinonen, A., Ahlqvist, T., Sundqvist-Andberg, H., Suominen, A., Myllyoja, J., Grandell, L., ... & Toivanen, H. Roadmaps to Arctic Opportunities.

Lerch Eriksson, V. (2025). A New Cold War on the Horizon?: A qualitative comparative cross-case and time-series study on circumpolar dynamics and shifts in Arctic Security Strategies.

Li, X., & Lynch, A. H. (2023). New insights into projected Arctic sea road: operational risks, economic values, and policy implications. Climatic Change, 176(4), 30.

Lindholt, L., & Glomsr?d, S. (2018). Phasing out coal and phasing in renewables–good or bad news for arctic gas producers?. Energy Economics, 70, 1-11.

Lindroth, M., & Sinevaara-Niskanen, H. (2017). Global politics and its violent care for indigeneity: Sequels to colonialism. Springer.

Liu, C., & Feng, Y. (2025). Navigating uncharted waters: Legal challenges and the future of unmanned underwater vehicles in maritime military cyber operations. Marine Policy, 171, 106430.

Ma, J., & Rizzo, A. (2024). “Arctic-tecture”: Teaching Sustainable Urban Planning and Architecture for Ordinary Arctic Cities. Urban Planning, 9.

M??tt?, K., & Uusiautti, S. (2019). Arctic education in the future. Human migration in the Arctic: the past, present, and future, 213-238.

M??tt?, K., Hyv?rinen, S., ??rel?, T., & Uusiautti, S. (2020). Five basic cornerstones of sustainability education in the Arctic. Sustainability, 12(4), 1431.

Mabbett, D. Buying Greenland. The Political Quarterly.

Martill, B., & Gebhard, C. (2023). Combined differentiation in European defense: tailoring Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) to strategic and political complexity. Contemporary security policy, 44(1), 97-124.

Martins, B. O., & Mawdsley, J. (2021). Sociotechnical imaginaries of EU defence: The past and the future in the European defence fund. JCMS: Journal of common market studies, 59(6), 1458-1474.

McCauley, D. (2023). A JUST CSR Framework for the Arctic. Arctic Justice: Environment, Society and Governance, 51.

MacKay, A. N. (2024). From Algorithms to Arctic Ice: AI's Role in Climate Adaptation from Ottawa to Oslo (Master's thesis, UIS).

Malik, I. H., & Ford, J. D. (2025). Understanding the Impacts of Arctic Climate Change Through the Lens of Political Ecology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 16(1), e927.

Marinova, I., & Gricius, G. (2025). The Arctic potential: cutting the Gordian knot of EU–Russia relations?. European Security, 34(1), 1-20.

Mason, J. G., Bryndum‐Buchholz, A., Palacios‐Abrantes, J., Badhe, R., Morgante, I., Bianchi, D., ... & Petrik, C. M. (2024). Key uncertainties and modeling needs for managing living marine resources in the future Arctic Ocean. Earth's Future, 12(8), e2023EF004393.

Mattar, S., Mikulewicz, M., & McCauley, D. (2020). Climate justice in the Arctic: a critical and interdisciplinary climate research agenda.

Maurer, A., Steinicke, S., Engel, A., Mnich, S., & Oberl?nder, L. (2012, May). The EU as an Arctic Actor? Interests and Governance Challenges. In Report on the 3rd Annual Geopolitics in the North* GeoNor* Conference and Joint GeoNor Workshops, Berlin, May 22á24 (Vol. 16).

Mead, W. R. (2014). The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers. Foreign Aff., 93, 69.

Melia, N., Haines, K., & Hawkins, E. (2016). Sea ice decline and 21st century trans‐Arctic shipping routes. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(18), 9720-9728.

Melchiorre, T. (2024). The European Union and the Arctic: the Case of Fishery. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 15(1), 231-257.

Melchiorre, T. (2025). The international and regional dimensions of the environmental actorness of the European Union. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 1-15.

Meltofte, H., Barry, T., Berteaux, D., Bültmann, H., Christiansen, J. S., Cook, J. A., ... & Wrona, F. J. (2013). Arctic Biodiversity Assesment. Synthesis. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF).

Mervis, J. (2025). Trump orders cause chaos at science agencies. Science (New York, NY), 387(6734), 564-565.

Michel, D. (2021). Climate Security, Conflict Prevention, and Peacebuilding. The EU and Climate Security: Toward Ecological Diplomacy, 433-453.

Middleton, A., & R?nning, B. (2022). Geopolitics of subsea cables in the Arctic. The Arctic Institute.

Mikkelsen, A., & Langhelle, O. (Eds.). (2008). Arctic oil and gas: sustainability at risk?. Routledge.

Mikkola, H., Paukkunen, S., & Toveri, P. (2023). Russian aggression and the European Arctic: Avoiding the trap of Arctic exceptionalism. Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

Minister, P. (2007). Inuit and the Nunavut land claims agreement: supporting Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. Options politiques, 2008.

Morehouse, T. A., & Leask, L. (1980). Alaska's North Slope Borough: oil, money and Eskimo self-government. Polar Record, 20(124), 19-29.

Morrell, K., & Dahlmann, F. (2023). Aristotle in the Anthropocene: The comparative benefits of Aristotelian virtue ethics over Utilitarianism and deontology. The Anthropocene Review, 10(3), 615-635.

Mügge, D. (2024). EU AI sovereignty: For whom, to what end, and to whose benefit?. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(8), 2200-2225.

Müller, D. K. (2025). Polar tourism and the changing geographies of the Arctic and the Antarctic regions. Tourism Geographies, 1-9.

Müller-Eie, D., & Kosmidis, I. (2023). Sustainable mobility in smart cities: a document study of mobility initiatives of mid-sized Nordic smart cities. European Transport Research Review, 15(1), 36.

Munim, Z. H., Saha, R., Sch?yen, H., Ng, A. K., & Notteboom, T. E. (2022). Autonomous ships for container shipping in the Arctic routes. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 27(1), 320-334.

Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary?? ? ? ? ? ? . Inquiry, 16(1–4), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682

Nasteka, A. (2020). Use of Blockchain for Ensuring Cyber Security in the Arctic. In Cybersecurity and Resilience in the Arctic (pp. 274-278). IOS Press.

Nguyen Le, T. V. (2014). Technology Enhanced Tourist Experience: Insights From Tourism Companies In Rovaniemi.

Nijkamp, Hugo & Sessions, Saskia & Blanc, Philippe & Autret, Yannick. (2014). Arctic Oiled Wildlife Response: Exploring Potential and Limitations. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings. 2014. 1569-1582. 10.7901/2169-3358-2014.1.1569

Nilsson, A. E. (2013). Arctic resilience: Interim report 2013.

Nilsson, A. E., Carlsen, H., & van der Watt, L. M. (2015). Uncertain futures: the changing global context of the European Arctic. Report from a scenario workshop in Pajala, Sweden.

Nixdorf, U., Dethloff, K., Rex, M., Shupe, M., Sommerfeld, A., Perovich, D. K., ... & Boetius, A. (2021). MOSAiC extended acknowledgement.

Nordic Council (2017). International strategy of the Nordic Council 2018–2022. Copenhagen: Nordic Council. DOI: https://doi. org/10.6027/politiknord2023-718.

Nuttall, M. (2002). Global interdependence and Arctic Voices: Capacity-building for sustainable livelihoods. Polar Record, 38(206), 194-202.

Nuttall, M. (2005). Protecting the Arctic: Indigenous peoples and cultural survival. Routledge.

Oberthür, S., & Groen, L. (2018). Explaining Goal Achievement in International Negotiations: The EU and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(5), 708–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1291708

Obydenkova, A. (2024). Arctic environmental governance: challenges of sustainable development. Climatic Change, 177(7), 105.

Odgaard, L. (2023). Russia's Arctic Designs and NATO. In Survival: August-September 2022 (pp. 89-104). Routledge.

Offerdal, K. (2010). Arctic energy in EU policy: Arbitrary interest in the Norwegian High North. Arctic, 30-42.

Ohnishi, F. (2016). Japan's Arctic policy development: from engagement to a strategy. In Asian countries and the Arctic future (pp. 171-182).

Ojanen, H., & V?is?nen, A. (2023). Finnish and Swedish NATO membership: What does it hold for the Arctic?. In Defending NATO’s Northern Flank (pp. 225-249). Routledge.

O'Leary, C. (2014). The New Ice Age: The Dawn of Arctic Shipping and Canada's Fight for Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage. U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev., 46, 117.

O’Rourke, R. (2020). Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service.

Olsvig, S., & Cullen, M. (2024). Arctic Indigenous Peoples and International Law. Nordic Journal of International Law, 93(1), 152-169.

?rebech, P. T. (2017). The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic-or Evolutionary-Interpretation?. Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy, 13(1), 53-86.

?sthagen, A. (2018). Managing Conflict at Sea. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 9, 100-123.

?sthagen, A. (2016). The Arctic coast guard forum: big tasks, small solutions. In Maritime Security Challenges: Focus High North. Papers from the Kiel Conference (pp. 3-8).

?sthagen, A. (2013). The European Union–An Arctic Actor?. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 15(2).

?sthagen, A. (2024). The myths of Svalbard geopolitics: An Arctic case study. Marine Policy, 167, 106183.

?sthagen, A. (2017). Geopolitics and security in the Arctic: what role for the EU?. European View, 16(2), 239-249.

?sthagen, A., & ?sthagen, A. (2020). International cooperation as an Arctic solution?. Coast Guards and Ocean Politics in the Arctic, 65-77.

?sthagen, A. (2020). Maritime boundary disputes: What are they and why do they matter?. Marine Policy, 120, 104118.

?sthagen, A. (2019). The new geopolitics of the Arctic: Russia, China, and the EU. Brussels: Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies.

?streng, W., Heininen, L., Exner–Pirot, H., & Plouffe, J. (2012). Shipping and resources in the Arctic Ocean: a hemispheric perspective. The Arctic Yearbook 2012, 247-280.

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093

Oxford Analytica. (2025). China worry drives Trump talk of Panama and Greenland. Emerald Expert Briefings, (oxan-es).

Oxford Analytica. (2025). US threat makes Greenland independence less likely. Emerald Expert Briefings, (oxan-db).

?vsteb?, J. K. (2022). On thin ice? The coordination of Norway’s Svalbard policy in light of new conflicts of interest (Master's thesis, University of Agder).

Palosaari, T. (2019). The Arctic paradox (and how to solve it). Oil, gas and climate ethics in the Arctic. The GlobalArctic Handbook, 141-152.

Paolucci, P. B. (2019). The Political Chessboard. In Acquiring Modernity (pp. 346-363). Brill.

Pareek, N. (2021). Assessment on India’s involvement and capacity-building in Arctic Science. Advances in Polar Science, 32(1), 50-66.

Patel, H., Dave, G., & Sharaff, M. (2025). Microplastics: impact on marine animals and their remediation strategies. In Microplastics (pp. 377-402). Elsevier.

Pearce, T., Ford, J., Willox, A. C., & Smit, B. (2015). Inuit traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), subsistence hunting and adaptation to climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 233-245.

Pérez, E. C., & Yaneva, Z. V. (2016). The European Arctic policy in progress. Polar science, 10(3), 441-449.

Perrin, A. D., Ljubicic, G., & Ogden, A. (2021). Northern research policy contributions to Canadian Arctic sustainability. Sustainability, 13(21), 12035.

Péter, K. (2025). Trump 2.0, the European Union and China–How will Donald Trump's second term as president affect relations between the EU and China?.

Peterson, C. H., et al. (2003). Long-Term Ecosystem Response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Science, 302(5653), 2082–2086. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1084282

PEZARD, S., CHINDEA, I. A., AOKI, N., LUMPKIN, D., & SHOKH, Y. (2025). China's Economic, Scientific, and Information Activities in the Arctic.

Pichkov, O. B., Ulanov, A. A., & Patrunina, K. A. (2022). Digitalization of the Arctic. In The handbook of the Arctic: A broad and comprehensive overview (pp. 441-461). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Pincus, R., & Ali, S. H. (2016). Have You Been to “The Arctic”? Frame Theory and the Role of Media Coverage in Shaping Arctic Discourse. Polar Geography, 39(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2016.1184722

Pincus, R. (2015). The Arctic Coast Guard Forum: A Welcome & Important Step. Arctic Yearbook 2015, 389.

Piper, L. (2025). The Environmental History of the Arctic and Subarctic. A Companion to Global Environmental History, 124-136.

President of Russia (2020): Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation. https://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/64274

Polar Connect. (nd). Retrieved from https://nordu.net/polar-connect/ .

Politico (2025). Trump-Putin meeting not imminent, as first US-Russia talks on Ukraine finish in Riyadh. Politico EU. Retrieved from: https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-us-talk-riyadh-conclude-4-5-hours/

Quillérou, E., Jacquot, M., Cudennec, A., Bailly, D., Choquet, A., & Zakrewski, L. (2020). The Arctic: Opportunities, Concerns and Challenges. Scientific Fact sheets of the Ocean & Climate Platform, 73-87.

Rafaly, V. (2022). The Law of the Sea in the Age of Building an Appropriate Arctic Ocean Governance Addressing Climate Change Issues. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 13(1), 233-251.

Rahbek-Clemmensen, J. (2019). When Do Ideas of an Arctic Treaty Become Prominent in Arctic Governance Debates?. Arctic, 72(2), 116-130.

Rahim, A., Barabady, J., & Yuan, F. (2023, June). Self-driving Cars in the Arctic Environment. In International Congress and Workshop on Industrial AI (pp. 89-100). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Raspotnik, A., Gr?nning, R., & Herrmann, V. (2020). A tale of three cities: the concept of smart sustainable cities for the Arctic. Polar Geography, 43(1), 64-87.

Raspotnik, A. (2016). The European Union and its Northern frontier: European geopolitics and its Arctic context (Doctoral dissertation, Universit?t zu K?ln).

Raspotnik, A. (2018). The European Union and the Geopolitics of the Arctic. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Raspotnik, A., & ?sthagen, A. (2022). The European Union and Arctic Security Governance. In Global Arctic: An Introduction to the Multifaceted Dynamics of the Arctic (pp. 425-442). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Raspotnik, A., & ?sthagen, A. (2021). What about the arctic? The European Union’s geopolitical quest for northern space. Geopolitics, 26(4), 1150-1174.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

REGENS, J. L., & BEDDOWS, J. S. (2024). Warming Arctic-Geopolitical Rivalries: Risks to Continental Defense for North America and NATO's Northern Flank in Europe. Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, 7(4).

Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

Ren, Y. (2023). US-China arctic cooperation in a new era of Great Power Competition: Opportunities and challenges. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 14(1), 98-122.

Renaud, J., & Landriault, M. (2025). The Narratives War in the Arctic: Between Russian Disinformation and International Rivalries. Policy, (33).

Rendtorff, J. D. (2023). Environmental change in the arctic. In Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics (pp. 658-660). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Representation in Luxembourg. (2025, February 11). EU launches InvestAI initiative to mobilise €200 billion of investment in artificial intelligence. Representation in Luxembourg. https://luxembourg.representation.ec.europa.eu/actualites-et-evenements/actualites/eu-launches-investai-initiative-mobilise-eu200-billion-investment-artificial-intelligence-2025-02-11_en

Ridstr?m, M. (2024). The Arctic in Transition: Great Power Competition at the End of the Post-Cold War Order.

Rigot-Müller, P., Cheaitou, A., Etienne, L., Faury, O., & Fedi, L. (2022). The role of polarseaworthiness in shipping planning for infrastructure projects in the Arctic: The case of Yamal LNG plant. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 155, 330-353.

R?d, B., Barabadi, A., & Gudmestad, O. T. (2016, June). Characteristics of arctic infrastructure resilience: application of expert judgement. In ISOPE International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference (pp. ISOPE-I). ISOPE.

Rosamond, B. (2014). Three ways of speaking Europe to the world: Markets, peace, cosmopolitan duty and the EU's normative power. The British journal of politics and international relations, 16(1), 133-148.

Rothwell, D. R. (2015). 12. Arctic sovereignty and its legal significance for Canada. Handbook of the Politics of the Arctic, 247.

Rothwell, D. R. (1995). International law and the protection of the Arctic environment. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 44(2), 280-312.

Rothwell, D. R. (2015). The United States and Arctic Straits: The Northwest Passage and the Bering Strait. In International Law and Politics of the Arctic Ocean (pp. 160-179). Brill Nijhoff.

Rovenskaya, E., Strelkovskii, N., Erokhin, D., & Ilmola-Sheppard, L. (2024). Future scenarios of commercial freight shipping in the Euro-Asian Arctic. Futures, 163, 103446.

Rowe, E. T. W., Sverdrup, U., Friis, K., H?nneland, G. B., & Sfraga, M. (2021). A Governance and Risk Inventory for a Changing Arctic. On Thin Ice: Perspectives on Arctic Security.

Rubab, M., Ali, Z., & Arif, M. S. (2024). US-Russia rivalry in the 21st century: New cold war and Russian resurgence in the changing global power dynamics. Spry Contemporary Educational Practices, 3(1).

Ruiz-Capel, S., Riska, K. A. J., & Gutiérrez-Romero, J. E. (2023). A methodology for designing light hull structure of ice class vessels. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy, 9(2), 341-357.

Ryghaug, M., Haugland, B. T., S?raa, R. A., & Skj?lsvold, T. M. (2022). Testing emergent technologies in the Arctic: how attention to place contributes to visions of autonomous vehicles. Science & Technology Studies, 35(4), 4-21.

Salo, O., & Syri, S. (2014). What economic support is needed for Arctic offshore wind power?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 343-352.

S?tra, H. S. (2023). Technology and sustainable development: The promise and pitfalls of techno-solutionism (p. 287). Taylor & Francis.

Saunavaara, J., Espiritu, A. A., & Lomaeva, M. (2025). Collaboration between Arctic and northern subnational governments disrupted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Polar Science, 101172.

Schunz, S., De Botselier, B., & López Piqueres, S. (2021). The European Union’s Arctic policy discourse: green by omission. Environmental Politics, 30(4), 579-599.

Seidel, E. B. (2024). How have the European Commission (EC) and Arctic EU Member States constructed Russia as a security threat through evolving Arctic discourse?

Sergejeva, N. (2023). Paradigmatic policy elements of which classical philosophical theory–utilitarianism or deontology–dominate Green Deal? (Master's thesis, It?-Suomen yliopisto).

Simon, C. M. R. Why do the US and EU Arctic policies converge? An Arctic perspective on the liberal world order.

Sfagra, M., Eicken, H., & Babin, M. (2022). Climate Change's Profound Disruption of the Arctic. Can.-USLJ, 46, 16.

Schofield, C., & Potts, T. (2009). Across the Top of the World? Emerging Arctic Navigational Opportunities and Arctic Governance. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 472-482.

Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature.

Sepehri, A., Vandchali, H. R., Siddiqui, A. W., & Montewka, J. (2022). The impact of shipping 4.0 on controlling shipping accidents: A systematic literature review. Ocean engineering, 243, 110162.

Sergunin, A. A. (2022). International Cooperation in the Arctic: The Arctic Council. In The Handbook of the Arctic: A Broad and Comprehensive Overview (pp. 33-52). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Shadian, J. (2014). The Politics of Arctic Sovereignty: Oil, Ice, and Inuit Governance. Routledge.

Sharma, B., & Sinha, U. K. (2025). Hot Stakes in the Arctic: Global Rivalries and New Geopolitical Forces. Strategic Analysis, 1-10.

Shulyatyev, I. A. (2022). International Legal Framework of Arctic Exploration. In Energy of the Russian Arctic: Ideals and Realities (pp. 17-42). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Shupe, M. D., Rex, M., Blomquist, B., Persson, P. O. G., Schmale, J., Uttal, T., ... & Yue, F. (2022). Overview of the MOSAiC expedition: Atmosphere. Elem Sci Anth, 10(1), 00060.

Sidorova, E. J. (2020). The incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge in the Arctic Council: lip service?. Polar Record, 56, e28.

Silber, G. K., Adams, J. D., & Bettridge, S. (2012). Vessel operator response to a voluntary measure for reducing collisions with whales. Endangered Species Research, 17(3), 245-254.

Skillington, T. (2019). Climate change and intergenerational justice. Routledge.

Sloan, S. R. (2025). Whither NATO? A History of NATO’s Futures. The Oxford Handbook of NATO, 94.

?mieszek, M., & Koivurova, T. (2017). The Arctic Council: between continuity and change. In One Arctic: The Arctic Council and Circumpolar Governance (pp. 1-27). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and the Centre on Foreign Policy and Federalism.

Smieszek, M., Young, O. R., Hoel, A. H., & Singh, K. (2021). The state and challenges of Arctic governance in an era of transformation. One Earth, 4(12), 1665-1670.

Smith, L. C., & Stephenson, S. R. (2013). New Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes Navigable by Midcentury. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(13), E1191–E1195. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214212110

Soendergaard, N., & Thives, V. (2022). Riding the Dragon in the Scramble for Independence: Chinese-Greenlandic Cooperation on Large-Scale Projects in the Arctic Sea. Meridiano 47-Boletim de Análise de Conjuntura em Rela??es Internacionais, 23.

S?rensen, C. T., & Klimenko, E. (2017). Emerging Chinese–Russian cooperation in the Arctic: Possibilities and constraints.

Speth, J. G. (2015). Diplomacy on Ice: Energy and the Environment in the Arctic and Antarctic. Yale University Press.

Spohr, K., Hamilton, D. S., & Moyer, J. C. (Eds.). (2021). The Arctic and world order. Brookings Institution Press.

Srivastav, R. S., & More, A. P. (2025). A Comprehensive Review of Self‐Healing Polymers: Mechanisms, Types, and Industry Implications. Polymers for Advanced Technologies, 36(2), e70092.

State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China. (2018). China's Arctic Policy. Beijing. https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm

Statista. (2025). Military bases in the Arctic belonging to NATO and Russia. Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/chart/33824/military-bases-in-the-arctic-belonging-to-nato-and-russia/

Stensrud, C. J., & ?sthagen, A. (2024). Hybrid warfare at sea? Russia, Svalbard and the Arctic.

St?pień, A., & Koivurova, T. (2017). Arctic Europe: bringing together the EU Arctic policy and Nordic cooperation.

St?pień, A., & Raspotnik, A. (2021). Continuity with Great Confidence: The European Union's 2021 Arctic Policy Update.

St?pień, A., & Koivurova, T. (2017). Formulating a Cross-cutting Policy: Challenges and Opportunities for Effective EU Arctic Policy-making. The European Union and the Arctic, 9-39.

Stepien, A. (2016). Other futures for Arctic economies?: Searching for alternatives to resource extraction.

Stokke, O. S. (2006). Examining the consequences of Arctic institutions. In International Cooperation and Arctic Governance (pp. 31-44). Routledge.

Stokke, O. S. (2013). Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: Explaining regional niche selection. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13, 65-85.

Stokke, O. S. (2013). The promise of involvement: Asia in the Arctic. Strategic Analysis, 37(4), 474-479.

Schunz, S. (2022). The ‘European Green Deal’–a paradigm shift? Transformations in the European Union’s sustainability meta-discourse. Political Research Exchange, 4(1), 2085121.

Spence, J., R?dven, R., & ?gren, N. Enabling and Bridging Institutional Diversity Through Polycentric Governance Structures to Advance Sustainable Development: The Case Study of the Arctic Council a. In Institutional Diversity and Sustainable Environmental Management (pp. 145-164). CRC Press.

St?pień, A. (2016). Other futures for Arctic economies? Searching for alternatives to resource extraction. ArCticle.

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2020). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. In The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering, and Clean Energy (pp. 347-359). Routledge.

Stroeve, J. C., Notz, D., Dawson, J., Schuur, E. A., Dahl-Jensen, D., & Giesse, C. (2025). Disappearing landscapes: The Arctic at+ 2.7° C global warming. Science, 387(6734), 616-621.

Submarine Cable Networks. (2023). Arctic Connect: Subsea Fiber Cable System. https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/trans-arctic/arctic-connect

Sun, K. (2014). Beyond the Dragon and the Panda: Understanding China's Engagement in the Arctic. Asia Policy, 18(1), 46-51.

Suter, L., Streletskiy, D., & Shiklomanov, N. (2019). Assessment of the cost of climate change impacts on critical infrastructure in the circumpolar Arctic. Polar Geography, 42(4), 267-286.

Stuhl, A. (2019). Unfreezing the Arctic: Science, colonialism, and the transformation of Inuit lands. University of Chicago Press.

Tam, K., & Jones, K. D. (2018). Maritime cybersecurity policy: the scope and impact of evolving technology on international shipping. Journal of Cyber Policy, 3(2), 147-164.

Tan, G. (2017). Ecological Virtue Ethics: Towards Conversion and Environmental Action. Boston College.

Ter?s, J., & M?enp??, A. (2024). Arctic smart specialisation and municipal waste management: Case: North Norway.

Ter?s, J., Salenius, V., Fagerlund, L., & Stanionyte, L. (2018). Smart specialisation in sparsely populated European Arctic regions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Terzi, ?. (2025). 8 Differentiated (dis) integration of preferences. Differentiated Integration in a Nordic Perspective, 142.

Terzi, ?. (2024). Emotional politics of norm hierarchy in EU’s external relation

Tilling, R. L., Ridout, A., & Shepherd, A. (2016). Near-real-time Arctic sea ice thickness and volume from CryoSat-2. The Cryosphere, 10(5), 2003-2012.

Tonami, A., & Tonami, A. (2016). Arctic Policy of South Korea (Republic of Korea). Asian Foreign Policy in a Changing Arctic: The Diplomacy of Economy and Science at New Frontiers, 73-92.

Tonami, A., & Watters, S. (2012). Japan’s Arctic policy: The sum of many parts. Arctic Yearbook 2012 Table of Contents, 94.

Tous Ramon, N., Schwerdt, M., Castellanos Alfonzo, G., & Schmidt, K. (2016). Verification of Sentinel-1B Internal Calibration-First Results. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (EUSAR).

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). (1982). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html

United States Department of Defense. (2019). Report to Congress. Department of Defense Arctic Strategy. https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jun/06/2002141657/-1/-1/1/2019-DOD-ARCTIC-STRATEGY.PDF

United States Department of Defense. (2024). DOD Arctic Strategy 2024. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jul/22/2003507411/-1/-1/0/DOD-ARCTIC-STRATEGY-2024.PDF

U.S. Geological Survey. (2008). Circum-Arctic resource appraisal: Estimates of undiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic Circle. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf

University of Lapland / Arctic Centre. (2025). List of current and finalised projects. Retrieved from: https://research.ulapland.fi/en/organisations/arktinen-keskus/projects/

van der Watt, L. M., Riedel, A., Dahlb?ck, B., Tedsen, E., Jagodziński, K., & Kankaanp??, P. (2016). European Arctic Initiatives: Capacities, Gaps and Future Opportunities. In The Changing Arctic and the European Union (pp. 243-295). Brill Nijhoff.

VanderZwaag, D. (1999). Regionalism and Arctic Marine Environmental Protection: Drifting between Blurry Boundaries and Hazy Horizons. In Order for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century (pp. 231-248). Brill Nijhoff.

Vatanen, M., Vatanen, M., Alakunnas, T., & Konttaniemi, H. (2015). Arctic Smart Village-Arktinen ?lykyl?.

Vermeulen, M. (2024). Navigating Arctic Waters:: Assessing the Geopolitical Implications of China's Polar Silk Road Initiative on Sweden and the Netherlands, and Strategies for Adaptation.

Vicu?a, F. O. (2025). Oceans, Antarctica and the Environment: Traditional International Cooperation and New Approaches to Move Forward. In International Law in Search of Rebalance (pp. 318-348). Brill Nijhoff.

Vicentiy, A., & Vicentiy, I. (2018). SMART CITIES IN THE FAR NORTH IN 2038. TEN FACTORS THAT WILL INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMART CITIES THE COMING TWENTY YEARS. In 5th INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ON SOCIAL SCIENCES AND ARTS SGEM 2018 (pp. 213-220).

Vinuales, J. E. (2008). The contribution of the international court of justice to the development of international environmental law: a contemporary assessment. Fordham Int'l LJ, 32, 232.

Vladimirova, V. (2014). “It Is Not Our Reindeer but Our Politicians that Are Wild:” 1 Contests over Reindeer and Categories in the Kola Peninsula, Northwestern Russia. Arctic Anthropology, 51(1), 24-40.

Vl?ek, T., Chovan?ík, M., Uhlí?ová, K., & Jiru?ek, M. (2024). Strained Relations in the High North: Steps-to-War Analysis of Conflict Potential in the Arctic. Europe-Asia Studies, 76(3), 289-313.

Vylegzhanin, A. N., Young, O. R., & Berkman, P. A. (2020). The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement as an element in the evolving Arctic Ocean governance complex. Marine Policy, 118, 104001.

Wegge, N. (2020). Arctic security strategies and the North Atlantic states. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 11, 360-382.

Wegge, N. (2012). The EU and the Arctic. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 3(1), 6-29.

Wehrmann, D., ?uszczuk, M., Radzik-Maruszak, K., G?tze, J., & Riedel, A. (2025). Sustainable urban development in the European Arctic.

Weiss, E. B. (1992). In fairness to future generations and sustainable development. Am. UJ Int'l L. & Pol'y, 8, 19.

Wergles, N., Fonseca, L., & McMaster, I. (2021). Strategic Environmental Assessment: Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 2021-2027.

Wezeman, S. T. (2016). Military capabilities in the Arctic: A new Cold War in the High North?. SIPRI Background Paper.

Wezeman, P. D., & Wezeman, S. T., Tian, N., Kuimova, A., Da Silva, D. L., (2020). Trends in world military expenditure, 2019.

Walayat, K. (2025). Impact of Sweden's NATO Membership on Alliance's Military Strategy in the Arctic regarding Sweden's Contributions to cold-Weather Operations.

Watson, M. (2008). An Arctic treaty: A solution to the international dispute over the polar region. Ocean & Coastal LJ, 14, 307.

Wehrmann, D., ?uszczuk, M., Radzik-Maruszak, K., G?tze, J., & Riedel, A. (2025). Sustainable urban development in the European Arctic.

Wenjun, L., Fei, G., & Peiqing, G. (2025). China-Russia cooperation in arctic governance and sustainable development: A conference report from the 13th China-Russia Arctic Workshop. Marine Policy, 106649.

Wiedekind, J., & B?ller, F. (2025). Beyond stable alliances: uncertainty at the dawn of Trump’s second act. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 1-8.

Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. Journal of Environmental Management, 210, 290-298.

Wilson Rowe, E. (2018). Arctic governance: Power in cross-border cooperation (p. 176). Manchester University Press.

Windsor, S., Maxwell, G., & Antonsen, Y. (2022). Incorporating sustainable development and inclusive education in teacher education for the Arctic. Polar Geography, 45(4), 246-259.

Wikipedia. (nd). Map of the Arctic by Mercator Hondius. Retrieved from https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1606_Mercator_Hondius_Map_of_the_Arctic_(First_Map_of_the_North_Pole)_-Geographicus-_NorthPole-mercator-1606.jpg

Wikipedia. (nd). Map of the Polar Regions by Willem Barentsz. Retrieved from https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1598_map_of_the_Polar_Regions_by_Willem_Barentsz.jpg

Wood-Donnelly, C., & Ohlsson, J. (2023). Introduction: Justice in the Arctic. In Arctic Justice (pp. 1-7). Bristol University Press.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. United Nations. ("Brundtland Report"). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811?v=pdf

Wu, P., Huang, J., Zheng, Y., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., He, F., ... & Gao, B. (2019). Environmental occurrences, fate, and impacts of microplastics. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 184, 109612.

Yastrebova, A., H?yhty?, M., Boumard, S., Lohan, E. S., & Ometov, A. (2021). Positioning in the Arctic region: State-of-the-art and future perspectives. IEEE Access, 9, 53964-53978.

Young, O. R. (2010). Arctic governance-pathways to the future. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 1(2), 164-185.

Young, O. R. (2016). Governing the arctic ocean. Marine Policy, 72, 271-277.

Young, O. R. (2011). If an Arctic Ocean treaty is not the solution, what is the alternative?. Polar Record, 47(4), 327-334.

Young, O. R. (2016). The Shifting Landscape of Arctic Politics: Implications for International Cooperation. Polar Journal, 6(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2016.1253823

Durfee, M. (2019). Arctic Governance in a Changing World. Rowman & Littlefield.

Zahra, G. E., Imran Wakil, D. B. B. L., & Mustafa, G. (2025). US-China Trade War: Economic Impact on Global Politics. Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 3(1), 122-133.

Zandee, D., Kruijver, K., & Stoetman, A. (2020). The future of Arctic security. Clingendael Report, 2024.

Zellen, B. S. (2009). Arctic doom, arctic boom.

Zhang, M. L., Ding, T. M., & Ding, C. J. (2025). Research on the competitiveness of the Arctic transportation route under the belt and road initiative. Transportation Journal, 64(1), e12019.

Zhuravel, V. P. (2016). China, Republic of Korea and Japan in the Arctic: politics, economy, security. Arctic, (24), 100.

Zimmerman, M. (2018). High north and high stakes: the Svalbard archipelago could be the epicenter of rising tension in the arctic. Prism, 7(4), 106-123.

???. (2022). Climate Change in the Arctic Geopolitics (Doctoral dissertation, ????? ???).

Academic Sources

Coates, K. S., & Holroyd, C. (Eds.). (2020). The Palgrave Handbook of Arctic Policy and Politics. Springer. The Palgrave Handbook of Arctic Policy and Politics | SpringerLink
Ingimundarson, V. (2024). Iceland’s Arctic Policies and Shifting Geopolitics: Embellished Promise. Palgrave Macmillan. Iceland’s Arctic Policies and Shifting Geopolitics: Embellished Promise | SpringerLink
Weber, J. (Ed.). (2020). Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic: The High North Between Cooperation and Confrontation. Springer. Iceland’s Arctic Policies and Shifting Geopolitics: Embellished Promise | SpringerLink

Governmental Sources

Federal Foreign Office. (2024). Germany’s Arctic Policy Guidelines. auswaertiges-amt.de/resource/blob/2676060/5496910022404f7cf68049f1b10e4d5a/arktis-leitlinien-data.pdf
Federal Foreign Office. (2013). Germany’s Arctic Policy Guidelines: Responsibility, Seize Opportunities. Microsoft Word - Arktisleitlinien_ENG (end).docx
Federal Foreign Office. (2018). Germany’s Arctic Policy Guidelines: Assuming Responsibility, Creating Trust, Shaping the Future. Germany_s_Arctic_Policy_Guidelines_2019_Web.pdf
Government of Canada. (2018). Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Canada’s policy framework offers relevant comparators for the EU, particularly in areas of indigenous rights, environmental stewardship, and international cooperation. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587
Government of Denmark. (2020). Kingdom of Denmark. Strategy for the Arctic 2011– 2020. Copenhagen: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. https://um.dk/en/foreign-policy/the-arctic (A new strategy for 2021 until 2030 is currently delayed)
Government of Finland. (2021). Finland's Strategy for the Arctic region. Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs. https://tem.fi/en/finlands-strategy-for-the-arctic-region
Government of Norway. (2021). The Norwegian Government's Arctic Policy. Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/arctic_policy/id2830120/

Expert Organization Sources

European Commission. (2023). Earth Observation for the Arctic. Earth Observation for the Arctic | Knowledge for policy
German Arctic Office. (2024). German Arctic Strategy. Deutsches Arktisbüro: German Arctic Strategy
German Arctic Office. (2023). Arctic Council. Deutsches Arktisbüro: Arctic Council

Images / Maps

Arctic administrative areas. (Source: The Arctic Centre). https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion/Maps/Administrative-areas

Arctic Continental Shelf Claims. European Environment Agency at https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/arctic-continental-shelf-claims

Arctic Maps. Eurasian Geopolitics (E.W. Walker, UC Berkeley) at https://eurasiangeopolitics.com/arctic-maps/

Arctic Region Maps. The Arctic Centre (University of Lapland) at https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion/Maps

Arctic Seaways and comparison to Suez Canal route (Source: Eurasian Geopolitics). https://eurasiangeopolitics.com/arctic-maps/

Logo of the Arctic Investment Platform. A project by Arctic Smartness, implemented 2020 - 2022. (Source: arcticsmartness.eu). https://arcticsmartness.eu/arctic-investment-platform/

An artistic rendering of Arctic Innovation. (Source: Freepik) https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/3d-fantasy-scene_157440494.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=46&uuid=a464da88-4aa4-44dd-b049-6e3618a5e737&query=Arctic+Innovation

Brussels. European Flags. (Source: Naknaknak / Pixabay). https://pixabay.com/photos/brussels-europe-flag-banner-4056171/

Canada and Canadian Arctic Archipelago. (Source: Wikipedia). https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Canadian_Arctic_Archipelago.svg

Cold-weather warfare (UK Royal Marine Reservists training in Norway, 2014). (Source: Wikipedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold-weather_warfare#/media/File:Royal_Marine_Reservists_Training_in_Norway_MOD_45156923.jpg

Close up of crystal globe resting on grass in a forest. (Source: jcomp / Freepik). https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/close-up-crystal-globe-resting-grass-forest_5016918.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=6&uuid=d4d353a0-11f9-4448-8aef-5f46befbdfd2&query=sustainability

Ethic guidelines for trustworthy AI. (Source: European Commission). https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/ai-alliance-consultation/guidelines/1.html

EU AI & Robotics NoEs ("Network of Excellence") community. (Source: vision4AI). Retrieved from: https://www.vision4ai.eu/community/

Finnish Icebreaker Polaris. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(icebreaker)#/media/File:Finnish_icebreaker_Polaris_(24_March_2017).jpg

Finnish Lapland. The three northernmost municipalities Utsjoki, Inari and Enonteki? and part of Sodankyl? are officially considered the Sámi area. (Source: Wikipedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people#/media/File:Map_of_Lapland,_Finland-fi.svg

Forest covered with fog and a single house in Sweden. (Source: wirestock / Freepik). https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/forest-covered-with-fog-single-house-sweden_11890135.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=9&uuid=47f35566-221b-41ad-b715-b5eac2c86bd5&query=northern+sweden

Geological Survey of Norway. (n.d.). Circum-Arctic mineral resources. Retrieved from https://www.ngu.no/upload/Aktuelt/CircumArtic/kart/ArcticMineralsMap_5Million_low_resolution.pdf

Hand holding ice. (Source: Wirestock / Freepik) https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/hand-holding-ice-with-frozen-sea-cloudy-sky-iceland-background_9851657.htm#fromView=keyword&page=1&position=4&uuid=3e2db466-15a2-48a1-a029-d7d880f12717&query=Arctic+Resilience

Indigenous lands are endangered by climate change. Many Indigenous Nations hold traditional knowledge about land management in their bioregions. (Source: NASA / Wikipedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_knowledge#/media/File:Cultures_and_Land_at_Risk_(14193762825).jpg

Indigenous peoples of the Arctic Countries. Norsk Polarinstitutt. Retrieved from https://ansipra.npolar.no/english/Indexpages/Maps_Arctic%20.html

Internal view of a radome containing a Viasat antenna on Svalbard. (Source: Wikpiedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Satellite_Station#/media/File:Svalsat_Antenna_dome_from_inside.jpg

Major Players in the Arctic (Source: Arctic Council / European Commission / Knowledge4Policy). https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/earth-observation/earth-observation-arctic_en

Map of Britain, Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. (Source: British Sea Fishing). https://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-mackerel-wars/

Military Footprints in the Arctic. The Simons Foundation Canada at https://www.thesimonsfoundation.ca/sites/default/files/MilitaryFootprintsintheArctic_Final%2C%20March%202024.pdf

NATO and Russian military presences in the Arctic. (Source: Statista).

Nordregio. Main sites and areas for gas & oil production including infrastructure, main mining sites and sea ice extent in the Arctic. At https://archive.nordregio.se/Maps/05-Environment-and-energy/Resources-in-the-Arctic/index.html

Northern Light, Aurora borealis at Godafoss waterfall in winter, Iceland. (Source: tawatchai07 / Freepik). https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/northern-light-aurora-borealis-godafoss-waterfall-winter-iceland_11769019.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=3&uuid=50f7491f-0987-491a-a93a-9addc45ae5c9&query=northern+sweden

Poster inviting for the EU Arctic Forum, Indigenous Peoples’ Dialogue and Arctic Youth Dialogue?in Kittil?, Finland, on 26-27 June 2025. (Source: European Commission / oceans and fisheries europe) https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/events/eu-arctic-forum-indigenous-peoples-dialogue-and-arctic-youth-dialogue-2025-06-26_en

Projected changes in the Arctic climate, 2090. (Source: GRID Arendal). Retrieved from: https://www.grida.no/resources/7748

Reindeers. (Source: wirestock / Freepik). https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/group-elks-climbing-up-mountain-covered-with-snow_8753498.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=4&uuid=1f641272-ac56-43b8-acfd-c6142fcdd58b&query=european+arctic

Sami noaidi with a meavrresgárri drum used for runic divination. Illustration printed from copperplates by O.H. von Lode, after drawings made by Knud Leem (1767) (Source: Wikipedia). Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noaidi

Sámi Parliament in Sweden. (Source: Wikipedia). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people#/media/File:Sametinget_-_Sami_Parliament_of_Sweden.JPG

Sea Ice Cover for January 2025. EU Copernicus at https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-cover-january-2025

Share of Arctic regions on respective national Gross Product. (Source: GRID Arendal). https://live.staticflickr.com/708/31984572480_c43ee325ed_o.jpg

The European Arctic. (n.d.) InfraNorth. Retrieved from: https://infranorth.eu/project/european-arctic/

The map shows the 10-year average (2000–2009) global mean temperature anomaly relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Wikipedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic#/media/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg.png

The member states of the Arctic Council (Source: Arctic Portal). Arctic Portal at https://arcticportal.org/maps/download/maps-arctic-council-member-states-and-observers/2409-arctic-council-member-states

Tidal Power Turbine in Hammerfest / Norway. (Source: Walker, Stuart & Cappietti, Lorenzo. (2017). Experimental Studies of Turbulence Intensity around a Tidal Turbine Support Structure. 10.20944/preprints201702.0102.v1.)

Wordcloud about Climatechange. (Source: madartzgraphics / Pixabay). https://pixabay.com/illustrations/climate-change-global-warming-1908381/

Return to Part I here

Part II

Abstract

Table of Contents

Part I:

Abstract

Executive Summary

Introduction: The Arctic at a Crossroads: Navigating "Meltdown" and Charting a Course for a Sustainable Future

II. The Changing Arctic Context: Challenges and Opportunities in a Region of Global Significance

III. Core Principles Guiding the EU Arctic Policy: Sustainability, Resilience, International Cooperation, and Inclusivity

IV. EU Arctic Policy Priorities: Action Areas for a Sustainable and Prosperous Arctic

V. The EU as a Responsible Arctic Stakeholder: Towards a Sustainable, Peaceful, and Prosperous Arctic in a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape

Part II:

Conclusion

Appendix I: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for EU Arctic Policy Progress

Appendix II: Suggested Framework for AI Transparency in EU Arctic Initiatives

AI Transparency Section

References

Conclusion: Towards a Sustainable, Resilient, and Just Arctic Future: An Imperative for Decisive EU Action

Appendix I: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for EU Arctic Policy Progress

KPIs for Priority 1: Securing Arctic Peace and Stability

KPIs for Priority 2: Forging Strategic Arctic Partnerships

KPIs for Priority 3: Championing Sustainable Arctic Prosperity and Well-being

KPIs for Priority 4: Centering Arctic Indigenous Peoples

KPIs for Priority 5: Embracing Canada as a Transatlantic Partner

Cross-Cutting KPI: Ethical and Responsible AI Deployment in the Arctic

Appendix II: Suggested Framework for AI Transparency in EU Arctic Initiatives

Core Principles of AI Transparency in the Arctic:

Concrete Measures for Enhancing AI Transparency in the Arctic:

Transparency in Partnerships and Indigenous Engagement:

AI Transparency Section

AI Assistance in the Creation of This Policy Proposal: Transparency, Ethical Practice, and Expert Rigor

Scope of AI Assistance

Ethical Considerations and Scholarly Integrity

Originality and Expert Policy Oversight

Bias Awareness and Mitigation

Transparency and Ethical Standards

Reflections on AI's Role in Expert Policy Scholarship

Commitment to Human-Centered Expert Policy Scholarship

Confluence of Ethics and Innovation

Advancing Holistic Expert Policy Understanding

References

Academic Sources

Governmental Sources

Expert Organization Sources

Images / Maps

Stefan Holitschke的更多文章

Navigating Arctic Meltdown: A Proactive and Principled EU Arctic Policy Proposal for a Sustainable, Resilient, and Just Future - Part I

Beyond Prediction: Arctic Climate Cartography with Quantum-Enhanced Graph Neural Networks for Emergent Ice Regime Discovery

Global Arctic Metaverse: Ultra-Deep Technical Specification - Virtual Reality for Polar Research, Education, and Conservation

Arctic Renaissance: Catalyzing a Paradigm Shift Towards Planetary Symbiosis - Part II

Arctic Renaissance: Catalyzing a Paradigm Shift Towards Planetary Symbiosis - Part I

Global Arctic Data Trust: Ultra-Deep Technical Specification - A Quantum-Resistant, Scalable Blockchain Paradigm for Arctic Data Sovereignty

Symphony of Cognition: Revolutionizing Originality and Authorship in the Age of Human-AI Synergy

Arctic Reckoning: Europe's Ethical Tech Mandate Part II

Arctic Reckoning: Europe's Ethical Tech Mandate - Part I

Between Ice and Mind: Unveiling Polar Cognition and Liminality in German Literature on Spitsbergen - Part II