Chosen justice question particularly relevant for the regulatory/policy framework (in the light of JUSTNORTH research, aimed at supporting future justice-focused research on Arctic governance):

Weighting values: Does the framework promote certain values and interests at the expense of others? Whose interests are being promoted? Is the framework trying to strike a balance, promote certain interests or obscure the tensions within society, including individual vs group/community/global community interests?

Procedural justice: What are the opportunities for participation in decision-making and who is envisaged as a stakeholder?

Inclusion and participation: Are all relevant stakeholders/rightsholders included in the governance/decision-making process and are there any important stakeholders who are excluded? 

Climate justice: How is the implementation of a law/policy affected by climate changes?

Environmental justice and ethics: What identifiable actual or potential environmental harms and benefits are governed by the given regulatory framework? How are they distributed?

Environmental justice and ethics: What are the anthro-, bio- or eco-centric elements of a given regulatory framework? What norms and ideologies lie behind this orientation? What are the efects of this orientation on different measures within the regulation/policy?

Rights: Which rights and rights frameworks are expressly included in the governance framework, which are missing?

The EU is currently working towards updating its Arctic policy. It needs to respond to
two major changes that affect the region and pose challenges to the role of the EU
in the Arctic; accelerated climate change and increased geoeconomic and
geopolitical competition. The EU finds itself in a rather unique position. As a
supranational institution with competences in parts of the Arctic, and with Member
States having territories in the region, as well asinstitutionalised linkages with Arctic
countries Iceland and Norway — with whom the EU shares the European Economic
Area (EEA) — it needs to balance sectoral policies, priority areas and addressing
different Arctics. The EU should therefore create ‘more EU in the Arctic’ by
broadening the scope of its existing Arctic policy, as well as incorporating ‘more
Arctic in the EU’ by stipulating that the Arctic becomes a cross-cutting consideration
in other relevant EU policies. In addition, the EU will need to address hard and soft
security issues within existing functional, regional and global frameworks and
continue engaging in dialogue and confidence-building measures with Russia.
Finally, a revised EU Arctic policy needs to be proactive and ambitious, based on
existing strengths and expertise within the EU. At the same time, in an Arctic that
witnesses the return of geopolitics, the ‘civilian power’ EU will encounter challenges
assuming its role in the region. How it narrates its future position in the Arctic will
play a tangible role in negotiating this position politically.