*Originally published in 2025 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered directly to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

The Arctic has often been described as exceptional, a region of cooperation rather than conflict, more open than exclusive. However, even before the negative impact of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, this narrative overlooked the increasing role of non-Arctic states in shaping the very meaning and condition of the Arctic. It overlooked the fact that, even though so-called Arctic outsiders lack ‘natural’ Arctic sovereignty – the possession of land, waters and the resources the region contains – they can still have a ‘natural’ interest in the Arctic due the region’s increasing global relevance. To add nuance in how to better conceptualize the regional influence of such outsiders, we introduce the idea of ‘outsider geopolitics’; the ways in which actors from outside the Arctic try to engage with and influence the region, even without ‘formal’ standing as Arctic states. Outsider geopolitics is not about belonging due to natural variables but rather about performing, perceiving, and legitimizing due to action. As such, outsiders often engage through diplomacy, science, or climate advocacy, framing their actions in accordance with regional priorities to gain regional recognition and credibility.

Rather than offering a full framework, our aim is to explore a spectrum of outsiderness from states and entities that have taken a symbolic interest in the Arctic to those deeply involved in its research, governance, and diplomacy over the past two decades. Here, we focus on France as performative, Turkey as symbolic, and the European Union as conditional cases, since they exemplify distinct modes of outsider engagement – normative, symbolic and institutional. This provides an analytical lens – or at least an initial effort to create one – to examine how non-Arctic actors construct their Arctic presence through different narratives, capacities, and geopolitical imaginaries.

Generally, Arctic outsiders imagine the region through constantly re-occurring and emotionally powerful visual and symbolic lenses: polar bears (sometimes even penguins), melting glaciers, vanishing ice sheets, stereotypical Indigenous lifestyle and a disappearing ‘last chance’ wilderness. These narratives generate both global concern and regional interest, as for example visible in the growing number of tourists visiting the Arctic, but tend simplify the multilayered issues of the region and the very condition that is the Arctic. From afar, the Arctic is (too) often narrated as a single space only and not as the complex cosmos of many Arctics. This asymmetry between external homogeneity and internal diversity is at the core of outsider geopolitics. It is not just that outsiders often see the Arctic differently; through their politics, research agendas and narratives, they also participate in defining what the Arctic is and what it ought to be.

Outsider engagement with the Arctic is shaped by questions of legitimacy. Non-Arctic actors do not just show up, they often stage their involvement carefully, through language and action, through diplomacy or science, seeking recognition from Arctic institutions and publics. If Arctic sovereignty is essentially all about natural regional possession goals (land, water), then outsider legitimacy depends on internal recognition. Outsiders cannot simply declare themselves relevant; they must be accepted as such. This makes Arctic politics a field of ongoing negotiation, where actors must continually calibrate their actions to remain credible and relevant. A key venue where these dynamics play out is the Arctic Council (AC). Observer status, for instance, does not come with decision-making power, but it carries symbolic weight. It signals that an actor is a recognized part of the conversation. Countries like Japan, the Netherlands or South Korea have all pursued observer roles while contributing to Arctic science and regional initiatives. These efforts are not just about policy, they are about belonging.

Most conversations about Arctic governance divide actors into rather simple categories: Arctic states vs. non-Arctic states, insiders vs. observers, us vs. them. But this binary does not reflect how Arctic engagement actually works. In practice, there are degrees of outsiderness, shaped by political access, historical ties, and how actors position themselves in Arctic narratives. Conceptually, this binary also does not take into account the over-phrased logic of ‘what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic’ and its – logical – consequence that developments outside the Arctic do also have an impact inside the Arctic.

We can think about Arctic outsiders along a spectrum, not as fixed types. For instance, performative outsiders like France or symbolic ones as Turkey; not Arctic states, but actively shaping Arctic narratives through their engagement. Then, conditional outsiders like the EU; present in institutions, but sometimes lacking full legitimacy or voice. These are not rigid boxes. States (and entities) shift along the spectrum depending on context; political, institutional, or even symbolic. The point here is not to reclassify actors, but rather to shift the lens to: Who gets to belong? Can outsiders perform their way in?

France and the Arctic: A Normative Outsider

France maintains a longstanding and layered relationship with the Arctic, rooted not only in politics but also in exploration, ethnography, and environmental science. Unlike many non-Arctic actors whose engagement is recent or strategically opportunistic, France’s Arctic interest is anchored in historical narratives and a normative commitment to climate and knowledge production.

Historically, France’s Arctic engagement began with early scientific expeditions, such as the “La Recherche expedition” in 1830s, and continued through the mid-20th century with figures like Jean Malaurie, whose ethnographic work with Indigenous communities still shapes the French understanding of Arctic societies. Similarly, the legacy of Paul-Émile Victor, a renowned polar ethnologist and explorer, continues to inform the French scientific tradition in polar research. Today, this tradition remains visible in........

© E-International