OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº.1, TD3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology,

Identity, and (Un)Bordering in Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026

RECONFIGURING ARCTIC GOVERNANCE: LAW, IDENTITY, AND EUROPE –

KOREA COOPERATION

HO KIM

hufsho@kmu.ac.kr

Ho Kim is an associate professor in International Economic and Trade Law at the Keimyung

University (Republic of Korea). He received his S.J.D. from the American University. Professor

Kim’s fields of interest include legal issues of international commerce. He also focuses on

international and regional cooperation.

MINSUB SHIM

minsub690@gmail.com

Minsub Shim is a researcher in the field of International Trade and International Commercial Law.

He received his Ph.D. in International Trade from the Graduate School of International and Area

Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (Republic of Korea). His research specialization

includes the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC), international

commercial dispute resolution, and EU trade and legal systems. He also worked as an editorial

assistant at the Institute of EU Studies and the Journal of EU Studies for three years, where he

gained extensive academic and research experience in international trade and European studies.

Abstract

This study examines the structural transformation of Arctic governance through a

constructivist lens, focusing on the strategic roles of discourse, identity evolution, and

performance-based contributions. Climate change and escalating geopolitical rivalries—

particularly post-Ukraine war—have exposed the institutional limitations of the Arctic Council

and eroded the traditional "low-tension cooperation" paradigm. In this shifting landscape,

geographic proximity is giving way to functional, contribution-based participation as the

primary source of legitimacy. Within this framework, this paper analyzes the complementary

trajectories of European and South Korean engagement. While Europe provides normative

leadership grounded in environmental regulation and multilateral institution-building, South

Korea has steadily expanded its role from a "responsible observer" to a technological and

operational "enabler," backed by its robust domestic legal frameworks, shipbuilding capacity,

and polar research infrastructure. The study argues that integrating Europe’s normative

sophistication with Korea’s industrial and technological expertise offers a strategic pathway to

overcome existing governance deficits. Ultimately, Europe–Korea cooperation represents a

model for a more inclusive, adaptive, and resilient multilateral architecture capable of

balancing sustainable development with environmental stewardship in a rapidly changing

Arctic.

Keywords

Arctic Governance, Europe–Korea Cooperation, Enabler, Identity Transformation, Normative

Power, Constructivism.

Resumo

Este estudo analisa a transformação estrutural da governação do Ártico através de uma

perspetiva construtivista, centrando-se nos papéis estratégicos do discurso, da evolução da

identidade e das contribuições baseadas no desempenho. As alterações climáticas e as

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

rivalidades geopolíticas crescentes — particularmente após a guerra na Ucrânia — revelaram

as limitações institucionais do Conselho do Ártico e minaram o paradigma tradicional da

«cooperação de baixa tensão». Neste panorama em mudança, a proximidade geográfica está

a dar lugar a uma participação funcional e baseada na contribuição como principal fonte de

legitimidade. Neste contexto, o presente artigo analisa as trajetórias complementares do

envolvimento da Europa e da Coreia do Sul. Enquanto a Europa proporciona uma liderança

normativa assente na regulamentação ambiental e na criação de instituições multilaterais, a

Coreia do Sul tem vindo a expandir de forma constante o seu papel, passando de «observador

responsável» para «facilitador» tecnológico e operacional, apoiada pelos seus robustos

quadros jurídicos nacionais, capacidade de construção naval e infraestruturas de investigação

polar. O estudo defende que a integração da sofisticação normativa da Europa com a

experiência industrial e tecnológica da Coreia oferece um caminho estratégico para superar

os défices de governação existentes. Em última análise, a cooperação Europa-Coreia

representa um modelo para uma arquitetura multilateral mais inclusiva, adaptável e resiliente,

capaz de equilibrar o desenvolvimento sustentável com a gestão ambiental num Ártico em

rápida mudança.

Palavras-chave

Governação do Ártico, Cooperação Europa-Coreia, Facilitador, Transformação de Identidade,

Poder Normativo, Construtivismo.

How to cite this article

Kim, Ho & Shim, Minsub (2026). Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –

Korea Cooperation. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics

of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in Contemporary Europe and Asia, VOL. 17 Nº.

1, TD3, September 2026, pp. 83-98. DOI https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0626.5

Article submitted on March 30, 2026 and accepted on May 10, 2026.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

RECONFIGURING ARCTIC GOVERNANCE: LAW, IDENTITY, AND

EUROPE –KOREA COOPERATION

HO KIM

MINSUB SHIM

Introduction

The Arctic is undergoing a profound transformation driven by the accelerating impacts of

climate change, geopolitical competition, and expanding economic interests. Rapid ice

melt is opening new maritime routes and increasing access to natural resources, thereby

elevating the region’s strategic importance. At the same time, these developments

intensify environmental risks, including ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and

threats to indigenous communities. As a result, the Arctic is no longer a remote and

peripheral space but has emerged as a critical arena where global environmental,

economic, and security dynamics intersect.

These transformations have exposed significant limitations within the existing Arctic

governance system. Traditionally characterized by cooperation and low political tension,

the Arctic is increasingly shaped by strategic rivalry, particularly in the context of broader

geopolitical conflicts. Institutional frameworks such as the Arctic Council face growing

constraints in addressing emerging challenges, especially those related to security. This

evolving context calls for a reassessment of how Arctic governance is conceptualized and

practiced, moving beyond static institutional perspectives toward more dynamic and

adaptive approaches.

This study approaches Arctic governance through a constructivist lens, emphasizing the

roles of discourse, identity, and performative contribution. In multilateral governance

systems, states do not simply act based on material capabilities; they also construct their

roles and legitimacy through diplomatic narratives and sustained practices. From this

perspective, the Arctic is not merely a physical region but a socially constructed political

space in which influence is shaped by how actors define themselves and are recognized

by others. Accordingly, legitimacy in Arctic governance increasingly depends on

contribution-based participation rather than geographic proximity alone.

Within this evolving framework, Europe and Korea represent two distinct yet

complementary trajectories of engagement. European actors have played a central role

in shaping Arctic governance through scientific research, environmental regulation, and

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

institutional development, establishing a form of normative leadership grounded in

sustainability and multilateralism. Korea, by contrast, has expanded its participation

through technological capacity, industrial strength, and growing involvement in scientific

and diplomatic initiatives. In particular, Korea’s transition from a “responsible observer”

to an “enabler” reflects a broader shift toward functional contribution as a basis for

legitimacy.

Against this backdrop, this study examines the transformation of Arctic governance and

explores the strategic potential of Europe–Korea cooperation. It argues that the

integration of Europe’s normative and institutional strengths with Korea’s technological

and operational capabilities offers a pathway to address existing governance limitations.

By analyzing legal frameworks, evolving state identities, and patterns of cooperation, the

study aims to demonstrate how a more inclusive, adaptive, and contribution-driven

governance model can emerge. Ultimately, it seeks to highlight the broader implications

of Arctic governance for global order in an era of increasing complexity and

interdependence.

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Legal Transformation, European

Engagement, and Korea’s Expanding Participation

Structural Transformation and the Crisis of Arctic Governance

The Arctic is undergoing profound structural transformation driven by the accelerating

impacts of climate change. The rapid melting of sea ice is no longer a seasonal anomaly

but a systemic shift, raising the possibility that the Arctic Ocean may evolve from a

periodic passage into a more stable maritime transportation corridor. At the same time,

increased accessibility to oil, gas, and rare minerals has significantly heightened global

economic interest in the region. These developments, however, are accompanied by

serious and interconnected challenges, including marine ecosystem degradation,

biodiversity loss, and growing threats to the livelihoods and rights of indigenous

communities. In particular, methane emissions released from thawing permafrost pose

long-term and potentially irreversible risks to the global climate system. As a result, the

Arctic is emerging as a complex geopolitical and environmental space where economic

opportunity, ecological vulnerability, and security concerns intersect on a global scale.

Geopolitical tensions are further undermining the stability of Arctic governance. The

intensifying rivalry between Russia and Western countries is transforming the Arctic from

a zone traditionally characterized by cooperation into one marked by strategic

competition. Military buildup, competing claims over maritime control, and expanding

resource development have escalated tensions across the region. These developments

are gradually eroding the long-standing model of “low-tension cooperation” that once

defined Arctic relations (Ingimundarson, 2014). At the same time, energy security and

control over emerging shipping routes have become central to national strategies,

reinforcing competitive dynamics. Consequently, the Arctic is being reshaped into a

complex geopolitical arena in which cooperation and conflict coexist.

In this evolving context, the Arctic Council has increasingly revealed its institutional

limitations. Heightened political tensions have constrained its ability to function

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

effectively as a cooperative platform. Although the Council has historically focused on

environmental protection and sustainable development, it remains structurally ill-

equipped to address security-related issues (Kim & Kim, 2022). As a result, critical

concerns such as military tensions are often excluded from formal deliberations. This

institutional gap risks further fragmenting Arctic governance. In response, alternative

approaches including minilateral cooperation and more flexible partnership frameworks

are gaining increasing attention.

The legal architecture of the Arctic reflects a layered and adaptive system (Kim & Shim

2022). Arctic-related treaties can be broadly divided into two categories: those that apply

generally to global maritime affairs but are also relevant to the Arctic, and those

specifically designed for polar regions. Foundational agreements such as the United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) were originally intended to govern

global maritime activities, yet they play a crucial role in Arctic governance. In particular,

Article 234 of UNCLOS, addressing “ice-covered areas,” provides a legal basis for coastal

states to adopt stricter environmental regulations tailored to the unique conditions of

polar regions (Gudev, 2020).

This framework is further complemented by polar-specific legal instruments. The

International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code establishes mandatory safety and

environmental standards for vessels operating in polar waters. The Svalbard Treaty, in

turn, provides a distinctive legal regime governing sovereignty and economic activity in

the Svalbard archipelago. Arctic agreements may also be categorized as multilateral,

regional, or bilateral. While UNCLOS, MARPOL, and the Svalbard Treaty represent

multilateral frameworks, regional arrangements often involve European actors, and

bilateral agreements such as the maritime delimitation treaty between Norway and

Russia play a critical role in stabilizing legal relationships (Yoo & Lee, 2020).

Despite the development of these legal frameworks, significant challenges remain. The

Arctic is among the regions most severely affected by climate change, making

international cooperation and continuous environmental monitoring essential for global

policy responses. At the same time, expanding resource extraction and tourism increase

pressure on fragile ecosystems. These dynamics underscore the need for more refined

and adaptive legal standards that can balance environmental protection with sustainable

development. Accordingly, Arctic governance frameworks are likely to continue evolving

in response to emerging environmental and geopolitical pressures.

Finally, international law becomes effective only through its incorporation into domestic

legal systems. States party to international treaties are obligated to implement these

norms through national legislation, a process that functions not only as a legal

requirement but also as a key policy instrument (Kim et al., 2023). Arctic coastal states,

for example, have strengthened domestic regulatory frameworks governing navigation

and territorial waters based on provisions such as UNCLOS Article 234. At the same time,

many countries have been developing legal and institutional systems related to maritime

safety, environmental protection, and polar research as their Arctic engagement

expands. Ultimately, Arctic governance operates through a dynamic, multilayered system

in which international and domestic law continuously interact.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

Europe’s Arctic Engagement: From Exploration to Norm-Based

Governance

Europe has played a foundational role in the early exploration and conceptualization of

the Arctic. Expeditions led by countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,

and Norway transformed the Arctic from an unknown frontier into a more comprehensible

geographical space. These explorations were driven not only by scientific curiosity but

also by economic motivations, including the search for new trade routes and natural

resources. In particular, the pursuit of Arctic sea routes was closely tied to imperial

competition and efforts to establish faster maritime connections to Asia. The

accumulation of navigational knowledge and advancements in cartography during this

period laid the groundwork for subsequent Arctic research and governance.

In the contemporary era, Europe’s perception of the Arctic has evolved in close

connection with the global challenge of climate change. Accelerating ice melt has

redefined the region as both a site of economic opportunity and environmental

vulnerability. While new shipping routes and resource extraction prospects attract

strategic interest, ecological degradation and biodiversity loss intensify the need for

environmental protection (Cavalieri et al., 2021). In response, European actors have

adopted a dual policy approach that seeks to balance economic utilization with

sustainability, particularly through strategic assessments linking climate governance,

regional development, and environmental stewardship in the Arctic (Arctic Centre,

University of Lapland, 2021). Nordic countries such as Norway, Sweden, and Finland, in

particular, perceive the Arctic as closely linked to their domestic ecological systems,

leading to integrated policy frameworks that align climate policy with Arctic strategy.

The European Union has further strengthened its engagement by framing the Arctic as a

key arena for global climate governance (Canova, 2025). By linking its carbon neutrality

agenda with Arctic policy, the EU positions the region as a frontline for climate action

(Shin, 2024). Concepts such as blue carbon and marine ecosystem protection have

emerged as central elements of this approach. This reflects a broader shift in viewing the

Arctic not merely as a site of resource exploitation, but as a domain requiring normative

regulation and environmental stewardship (Jung, 2022). The EU’s integration of scientific

research with regulatory frameworks enhances the legitimacy of its policies and aligns

with its broader identity as a “normative power” (Kuus,2020). This process also

demonstrates the EU’s expanding capacity for Arctic actorness beyond geographical

constraints (Jouhier, 2025).

European Arctic coastal states maintain a dual strategy that combines competition with

cooperation. Countries such as Norway and Denmark (via Greenland) actively pursue

maritime resource development and jurisdictional claims while simultaneously supporting

international legal frameworks. They rely on mechanisms such as UNCLOS to manage

disputes and legitimize their positions. Scientific data submissions and negotiated

continental shelf extensions exemplify rule-based governance in practice. This approach

helps mitigate tensions while preserving a cooperative regional order, allowing strategic

interests and institutional stability to coexist.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

Non-Arctic European states have also expanded their influence through active

participation in Arctic affairs. Countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, France,

and Italy primarily adopt science-driven strategies, utilizing advanced capabilities such

as icebreaking research vessels, satellite observation systems, and long-term climate

data analysis. These technological assets function not only as tools of scientific inquiry

but also as instruments of diplomatic influence. By emphasizing their identity as

“responsible stakeholders,” these states establish legitimacy in Arctic governance despite

lacking direct territorial claims.

Other European countries, including the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland,

have deepened their engagement through science diplomacy. Switzerland’s participation

is particularly notable, demonstrating that Arctic involvement is not constrained by

geographical proximity. Through polar research stations, international collaborative

projects, and the production of scientific knowledge, these countries contribute

meaningfully to policymaking processes. Scientific research provides the empirical

foundation for governance decisions while simultaneously fostering international

cooperation (Wood-Donnelly, 2023). As a result, Europe has developed a multilayered

Arctic governance structure characterized by diverse actors and interconnected roles,

supported by both international legal frameworks and regional policy initiatives designed

to address emerging Arctic disputes (Kim & Ko, 2021).

Korea’s Participation in Arctic Governance and the Evolution of Its Legal

and Strategic Frameworks

In recent years, the Arctic has emerged as a critical focal point of global environmental

change, driven by the accelerating impacts of climate change. Rapid ice melt is expanding

the possibilities for new maritime routes and resource development, thereby intensifying

geopolitical and economic interest in the region. At the same time, environmental

degradation, biodiversity loss, and challenges related to indigenous rights are becoming

increasingly pronounced. These developments have introduced structural tensions into

Arctic governance, further compounded by intensifying geopolitical rivalry particularly

between Russia and Western countries—which is transforming the Arctic from a zone of

low-tension cooperation into one of strategic competition. The disruption of cooperative

channels following the Ukraine war has weakened institutional stability, including within

the Arctic Council, which continues to face structural limitations in addressing security-

related issues.

Within this evolving context, Korea has steadily expanded its engagement in Arctic

governance. Since obtaining observer status in the Arctic Council in 2013, Korea has

pursued a more structured and proactive Arctic policy encompassing scientific research,

maritime activities, and multilateral cooperation (Kim 2022). Its growing investment in

research infrastructure and international collaboration networks reflects a transition from

passive observation to active participation. In particular, the operation of the icebreaking

research vessel Araon highlights Korea’s expanding capacity in polar research and science

diplomacy. At the same time, Korea has sought to balance economic interests with

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

environmental responsibility, positioning itself as a constructive and credible participant

in Arctic governance.

Korea’s Arctic engagement is closely linked to the evolution of its domestic legal

frameworks, which initially developed through its participation in Antarctic governance.

Beginning in the late twentieth century, Korea joined the Antarctic Treaty system and

assumed obligations to implement international norms domestically. This led to the

enactment of the “Act on Antarctic Activities and Environmental Protection” in 2004,

which incorporated the principles of the Madrid Protocol into national law. The legislation

established a comprehensive regulatory system based on prior authorization of activities,

environmental impact assessments, and strict environmental protection measures, while

also promoting scientific research through national planning and institutional support. As

such, it reflects a hybrid legal model that integrates regulatory control with policy

support.

Building on this institutional foundation, Korea’s polar policy gradually expanded to

include the Arctic, particularly as the region’s strategic importance increased.

Comparative analyses of polar legislation in Northeast Asia demonstrate that Korea has

developed a comparatively comprehensive legal framework for polar governance, moving

beyond Antarctic-specific regulation toward an integrated system covering both Arctic

and Antarctic activities, while similar comprehensive legal arrangements remain more

limited in neighboring countries (Kim & Kim, 2024). The acquisition of observer status in

the Arctic Council in 2013 underscored the need for a more integrated legal and policy

framework. In response, Korea enacted the “Polar Activities Promotion Act” in 2021,

which functions as a general framework law covering both Antarctic and Arctic activities.

This legislation introduced mechanisms for policy coordination, research and

development support, professional training, and international cooperation, thereby

strengthening the institutional basis for Korea’s expanding polar engagement.

More recently, the growing strategic significance of Arctic shipping routes has led to the

adoption of more specialized legislation. The 2026 “Special Act on the Promotion of Arctic

Shipping Routes and Related Industries” provides a targeted framework for logistics

development, industrial support, and international collaboration. Through institutional

mechanisms such as dedicated committees, financial support systems, and research

initiatives, this law enhances policy implementation capacity and reflects a shift in Korea’s

Arctic policy from a primarily research-oriented approach toward one that increasingly

incorporates economic and strategic dimensions. Nevertheless, challenges remain,

including potential overlaps among legal frameworks and the need for clearer

coordination mechanisms.

Against this backdrop, Korea’s expanding participation in Arctic governance carries

broader implications. As a country that has achieved both rapid economic development

and democratic consolidation, Korea enjoys a high level of international credibility and is

well positioned to act as a middle power. Its technological expertise, maritime industry

capacity, and diplomatic mediation skills represent important assets in navigating the

complex dynamics of Arctic governance. In particular, Korea is well suited to assume an

“enabler” role—facilitating cooperation, reducing tensions, and supporting institutional

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

resilience—thereby complementing existing great-power dynamics with a more inclusive

and functionally oriented approach.

Ultimately, the crisis of Arctic governance reflects broader transformations in the global

order rather than a purely regional issue. In this context, Korea’s participation extends

beyond the pursuit of national interests and contributes to norm formation, institutional

adaptation, and cooperative problem-solving. By aligning its policies with the principles

of sustainability and peaceful use, Korea can help strengthen the resilience of Arctic

governance frameworks.

Looking ahead, it is likely to evolve from a responsible participant into a substantive

contributor, particularly in the areas of scientific cooperation, environmental protection,

and maritime governance (Østhagen, 2013).

Reframing Arctic Governance: Discourse, Identity Transformation, and

Europe–Korea Cooperation

The Strategic Role of Discourse and Identity in Arctic Governance

In international relations, states do not assert themselves solely through material

actions; they also define and legitimize their roles through diplomatic communication.

Policy documents and official statements articulate not only national interests but also

the institutional space states seek to occupy. In this sense, discourse is not merely

descriptive but constitutive of policy itself. Particularly in multilateral governance

systems, language and narrative shape the boundaries of participation and influence.

Diplomatic discourse should therefore be understood as a strategic resource that

constructs both action and status in the international system.

This perspective is closely aligned with constructivist theory, which emphasizes that

international order is socially constructed through interaction. The Arctic, from this

viewpoint, is not simply a physical region but a political space shaped by shared

understandings and negotiated roles (Albert & Vasilache, 2018). A state’s position is

formed not only by its material capabilities but also by how it presents itself and is

perceived by others. Through discourse and practice, states generate expectations and

structure cooperation. As a result, identity and interaction become central to governance

outcomes.

Traditionally, legitimacy in Arctic governance was based on geographic proximity,

privileging Arctic coastal states. However, this standard has gradually evolved, allowing

non-Arctic actors to gain influence through sustained engagement and tangible

contributions. Scientific research, environmental protection, and institutional

participation have become key sources of legitimacy. This shift reflects a broader

transformation toward a more open and functionally driven governance structure. It also

underscores the importance of performance over geography in shaping participation.

The experience of European actors demonstrates how legitimacy can be built through

consistent contribution. Initial claims based on normative relevance were insufficient, but

long-term investment in research and governance participation gradually strengthened

credibility. This illustrates that legitimacy is accumulated through practice rather than

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

assertion. It also highlights that the quality and consistency of engagement are decisive

factors in determining influence within Arctic governance.

Ultimately, effective diplomatic discourse must remain aligned with actual capabilities.

Overstated narratives can weaken credibility, while understated positioning may limit

strategic opportunities. The most effective approach lies in maintaining coherence

between identity and performance. This alignment allows states to build trust over time,

which is particularly crucial in cooperative governance systems like the Arctic. In this

context, discourse becomes a key instrument for sustaining both legitimacy and

influence.

From Responsible Observer to Enabler: Korea’s Evolving Arctic Identity

When Korea joined the Arctic Council as an observer in 2013, it strategically adopted the

identity of a “responsible observer.” This framing emphasized adherence to international

norms, respect for the sovereignty of Arctic states, and a non-confrontational posture

within a governance system largely shaped by coastal actors. As an entry strategy, this

identity proved effective: it facilitated Korea’s access to institutional networks, enabled

participation in working groups, and signaled its willingness to operate within established

rules. At the time, such cautious positioning reflected both structural constraints and a

deliberate effort to build trust within the Arctic governance community.

Over the past decade, however, the material and institutional foundations of Korea’s

Arctic engagement have expanded considerably. Korea has developed globally

competitive shipbuilding capabilities, particularly in the construction of ice-class vessels

such as icebreakers and LNG carriers. In parallel, it has advanced technologies related

to maritime safety, satellite-based navigation, and sea ice forecasting. Its role in scientific

research has also deepened through sustained participation in international projects and

polar research initiatives. These developments collectively indicate a shift from limited,

observation-based participation to a more active and capability-driven form of

engagement.

This expansion of capabilities necessitates a corresponding redefinition of Korea’s

functional role within Arctic governance. Increasingly, Korea is not merely a participant

that observes and complies, but an actor that contributes to the operational effectiveness

of the system. In this context, the concept of an “enabler” provides a more precise

analytical lens. As an enabler, Korea supports the conditions under which cooperation

among Arctic and non-Arctic actors can take place—through the provision of technology,

infrastructure, data, and logistical support. This role is particularly significant in the

Arctic, where harsh environmental conditions and complex operational demands require

shared capabilities and coordinated efforts.

Despite these changes, the continued reliance on the “responsible observer” framework

reveals important limitations. While the term underscores restraint and norm compliance,

it inadequately reflects Korea’s expanded contributions and growing capacity to shape

outcomes. This disconnects between identity and practice may constrain Korea’s

international recognition and reduce its potential influence within governance processes.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

Moreover, it risks creating strategic ambiguity, as Korea’s actual activities increasingly

extend beyond the passive connotations of observation.

Against this backdrop, the “enabler” framework emerges as a more appropriate and

forward-looking alternative. By focusing on functional contribution rather than positional

restraint, it better aligns Korea’s identity with its evolving capabilities. This reframing

enhances the clarity, credibility, and strategic coherence of Korea’s Arctic engagement.

Ultimately, Korea’s transition from a responsible observer to an enabler reflects a broader

shift in Arctic governance itself—from a system centered primarily on status and

participation toward one that increasingly values capability, contribution, and

collaborative problem-solving.

Limits of Arctic Governance and the Strategic Potential of Europe–Korea

Cooperation

Arctic governance, despite its foundation in cooperation, norms, and institutional

dialogue, continues to operate under significant structural constraints. At its core, the

governance architecture remains dominated by Arctic coastal states, which retain

primary authority over decision-making processes. This concentration of influence

inherently limits the participation and impact of non-Arctic actors, even as the

consequences of Arctic transformation extend far beyond the region itself.

Simultaneously, the Arctic is characterized by the coexistence of competing priorities

environmental protection, resource exploitation, economic development, and emerging

security concerns. These overlapping agendas create a complex governance environment

in which cooperation is both necessary and difficult to sustain. The accelerating pace of

climate change further intensifies these pressures by opening new maritime routes,

expanding access to natural resources, and increasing geopolitical attention to the region

(Kim, 2026).

Within this evolving context, non-Arctic states are no longer peripheral actors but

increasingly important contributors to the governance ecosystem. Korea exemplifies this

shift through its functional and capability-based engagement. Rather than pursuing

territorial or sovereignty-based claims, Korea’s role is defined by its advanced

technological capacity, particularly in shipbuilding, maritime logistics, digital

infrastructure, and polar research. Acting as an “enabler,” Korea contributes to enhancing

the operational effectiveness of Arctic governance by supporting safe navigation systems,

ice-capable vessels, satellite-based monitoring, and scientific research infrastructure.

However, the effectiveness and legitimacy of such contributions are maximized when

embedded within cooperative, multilateral frameworks rather than pursued through

unilateral initiatives.

In this regard, Europe emerges as a particularly strategic and compatible partner.

European actors both Arctic and non-Arctic have accumulated extensive experience in

Arctic governance through sustained engagement in scientific research, environmental

regulation, and multilateral institution-building (Cha & Lim2022). European countries and

institutions have played a central role in shaping governance norms that prioritize

sustainability, environmental stewardship, and rule-based cooperation. This has resulted

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

in a multilayered governance system that integrates national policies, regional

cooperation mechanisms, and international legal frameworks. Europe’s normative

leadership and institutional sophistication thus provide a critical foundation upon which

deeper cooperation with Korea can be constructed.

The relationship between Korea and Europe is fundamentally complementary, offering a

strong basis for synergistic collaboration. Korea’s strengths lie in its industrial and

technological capabilities, including world-leading shipbuilding industries, smart shipping

technologies, and advanced digital systems. Europe, by contrast, brings expertise in

governance design, regulatory frameworks, environmental standards, and policy

coordination. The integration of these strengths allows for a more holistic approach to

Arctic governance—one that bridges the gap between technological implementation and

normative regulation. Such integration is particularly crucial in addressing governance

deficits, where technological solutions must be aligned with robust legal and institutional

frameworks to ensure sustainability, safety, and accountability.

Moreover, the expansion of scientific and industrial cooperation between Korea and

Europe significantly enhances the prospects for effective governance. Joint research

initiatives contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of Arctic environmental

changes, thereby strengthening the knowledge base for evidence-based policymaking.

Collaborative efforts in shipping, logistics, renewable energy, and infrastructure

development can support economic activities in the region while adhering to stringent

environmental standards. Importantly, such cooperation also facilitates the diffusion of

best practices and the harmonization of regulatory approaches, reducing fragmentation

within the governance system.

Ultimately, Europe–Korea cooperation represents not merely a supplementary dimension

of Arctic governance but a strategic pathway toward its evolution. By combining

technological innovation with normative leadership, and operational capacity with

institutional experience, this partnership can help address existing structural limitations

in Arctic governance. It offers a model of inclusive and functionally driven cooperation

that enhances resilience, promotes sustainability, and reinforces multilateralism. In doing

so, Europe and Korea are well-positioned to contribute to the development of a more

integrated, adaptive, and forward-looking Arctic governance system capable of

responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing region.

Concluding Reflections: Reframing Arctic Governance through

Discourse, Identity, and Europe–Korea Cooperation

This study has argued that Arctic governance should be understood not as a fixed

institutional framework, but as a dynamic order shaped by the interaction of discourse,

identity, and performative contributions. Diplomatic discourse functions not merely as a

tool for describing state roles, but as a constitutive element that defines the scope of

participation and legitimacy. This is particularly significant in a multilateral setting such

as the Arctic, where influence is determined less by geographic proximity than by

sustained contributions and consistent role performance.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

Within this structure, Europe has played a central role in shaping and advancing Arctic

governance. Through its accumulated experience in scientific research, environmental

protection, institutional design, and norm-building, Europe has contributed to

maintaining the stability and sustainability of the governance system. Its normative

leadership and institutional sophistication have been essential in preserving the Arctic as

a space of cooperation. In this sense, Europe functions not merely as a participant, but

as a key pillar in the formation and evolution of Arctic order.

At the same time, the role of non-Arctic states, including Korea, has been steadily

expanding. Functional contributions based on technological capacity, infrastructure, and

scientific expertise are increasingly recognized as critical to Arctic operations. This shift

indicates a broader transformation of Arctic governance from a closed, coastal state–

centered structure toward a more open and multilayered system. Contribution-based

participation is thus emerging as a new standard of legitimacy.

In this context, cooperation between Europe and Korea exhibits a structurally

complementary character. Europe’s strengths in normative frameworks and institutional

governance, when combined with Korea’s technological and industrial capabilities, create

the conditions for more effective implementation of governance mechanisms. This goes

beyond a simple division of roles, pointing instead to the emergence of an integrated

governance model that links norms with technology and policy with operations. Such

integration is particularly important in addressing existing limitations in implementation

capacity.

Furthermore, scientific and industrial collaboration serves as a key domain through which

this partnership can be operationalized. Joint research initiatives, data sharing, and

technological cooperation strengthen the scientific foundation of policymaking while also

fostering trust in international cooperation. At the same time, collaboration in maritime

logistics, green technologies, and energy sectors enables the pursuit of both economic

opportunity and environmental sustainability. These efforts contribute to transforming

Arctic governance into a more practical and executable system.

To summarize the main findings and theoretical contributions of this study, Table X

presents the key arguments regarding the transformation of Arctic governance and the

strategic significance of Europe–Korea cooperation.

As summarized in Table 1, the transformation of Arctic governance reflects a broader

shift from geography-based authority toward contribution-based legitimacy. The findings

of this study suggest that influence within Arctic governance is increasingly shaped by

the ability of actors to provide scientific knowledge, technological capacity, institutional

support, and practical solutions to shared challenges. From this perspective, discourse

and identity are not merely symbolic elements but strategic resources that enable actors

to establish credibility and sustain participation in governance processes. The cases of

Europe and Korea further demonstrate that effective governance is strengthened when

normative leadership and functional capabilities operate in a complementary manner.

Accordingly, the future development of Arctic governance is likely to depend on

governance arrangements that connect institutional frameworks with operational

implementation and combine regulatory coordination with technological innovation.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

Table 1. Core Arguments and Contributions of the Study

Analytical

Dimension

Main Argument

Implication for Arctic Governance

Governance

Transformation

Arctic governance is shifting from

a geography-based system toward

a contribution-based governance

model.

Legitimacy is increasingly derived from

functional participation and sustained

contributions rather than territorial

proximity.

Role of Discourse

and Identity

State influence is shaped not only

by material capabilities but also by

discourse, identity construction,

and role performance.

Arctic governance should be

understood as a socially constructed

and dynamic order.

Europe’s Position

Europe has established normative

leadership through environmental

governance, scientific research,

and institutional development.

Europe functions as a key norm-setting

actor that supports the stability and

sustainability of Arctic governance.

Korea’s Evolving

Role

Korea is transitioning from a

“responsible observer” to an

“enabler” through technological

expertise, scientific capacity, and

operational contributions.

Korea’s legitimacy increasingly stems

from its ability to facilitate cooperation

and provide practical governance

solutions.

Europe–Korea

Complementarity

Europe’s normative and

institutional strengths

complement Korea’s technological

and industrial capabilities.

Combining governance expertise with

operational capacity can address

existing implementation gaps in Arctic

governance.

Future

Governance

Model

Effective Arctic governance

requires cooperative structures

that integrate norms, technology,

and multilateral collaboration

Europe–Korea cooperation provides a

model for a more adaptive, resilient,

and inclusive governance architecture.

Ultimately, the future of Arctic governance will depend not on the unilateral role of any

single actor, but on cooperative structures that combine complementary capabilities. The

convergence of Europe’s normative leadership and Korea’s functional contributions offers

a pathway toward a more stable, sustainable, and resilient governance model. Such

cooperation not only helps maintain the Arctic as a space of collaboration rather than

competition but also holds broader implications as a model for global governance in an

increasingly complex international environment. Beyond the Arctic itself, this partnership

illustrates how middle powers and non-Arctic stakeholders can contribute constructively

to addressing transnational challenges through multilateral cooperation, knowledge

sharing, and capability-based participation. In this regard, Europe–Korea cooperation

represents not only a regional governance strategy but also an example of how future

international governance frameworks may evolve in response to growing geopolitical

uncertainty and global interdependence.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

References

Albert, M., Vasilache, A. (2017). Governmentality of the Arctic as an international region,

Cooperation and Conflict, 53(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836717703674

Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. (2021). Strategic Assessment of Development of the

Arctic: Assessment Conducted for the European Union. Rovaniemi: Arctic Centre,

University of Lapland.

Canova, E. (2025). The European Union’s ‘geopolitical subjectivity’ in the Arctic in

question: a case study of France and the Kingdom of Denmark relations. European

Journal of International Relations, 32(1), 3–29.

https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661251345442

Cavalieri, S., McGlynn, E., Stoessel, S., Stuke, F., Bruckner, M., Polzin, C., Koivurova,

T., Sellheim, N., Stepien, A., Hossain, K., Duyck, S., & Nilsson, A. E. (2021). EU Arctic

Footprint and Policy Assessment: Final Report. Brussels: European Commission

Cha, H., & Lim,S. (2022). EU Arctic Strategy effects on Arctic Policy of Sweden and

Finland - Focusing on the Monitoring System and Education. The Journal of Contemporary

European Studies, 40(1), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.17052/jces.2022.40.1.279

Gudev, P. A. (2020). The Northern Sea Route: Problems of National Status Legitimization

under International Law. Part I. Arctic and North, 40, 142–164.

https://doi.org/10.37482/issn2221-2698.2020.40.142

Ingimundarson, V. (2014). Managing a contested region: the Arctic Council and the

politics of Arctic governance. The Polar Journal, 4(1), 183–198.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2014.913918

Jouhier, S. (2025). The European Union’s Capacity to Act in the Arctic: Charting Degrees

of EU Actorness in the European and Circumpolar Territories. European Union. DOI:

10.1177/13540661251345442.

Jung. (2022). Implementation and the Prospect for the EU’s Climate Change Policy in the

Arctic (Focusing on international measures to reduce air pollutants and relations with the

Arctic states) 62,121-154. https://doi.org/10.18109/jeus.2022..62.121

Kim, B., & Kim, D. (2024). Comparative study of domestic laws related to polar regions

in Korea, China, and Japan. Journal of Korean-Japanese Military and Culture, 40, 31–71.

https://doi.org/10.47563/KJMC.40.2

Kim, B., & Kim, Y. (2022). Enactment and evaluation of the Polar Activities Promotion

Act. Korea and Global Affairs, 6(1), 443–472.

https://doi.org/10.22718/kga.2022.6.1.443

Kim, B., & Ko, S. (2021). Laws and policies for resolving conflicts related to the Arctic

region in Europe. Journal of European Union Studies, 57, 35–62.

https://doi.org/10.18109/jeus.2021.57.35

Kim, B., Shim, M. (2022). International and National Laws On the Arctic Sea and the

Arctic Region. The Korea Maritime Law, 44(2), 145-170.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17 Nº. 1, TD 3

Thematic Dossier – Geopolitics of Anxiety: Ideology, Identity, and (Un)Bordering in

Contemporary Europe and Asia

September 2026, pp. 83-98

Reconfiguring Arctic Governance: Law, Identity, and Europe –Korea Cooperation

Ho Kim, Minsub Shim

Kim, B., Shim, M., & Choi, J. (2023). Comparison of Korean and Chinese Laws on Polar

Activities. Northeast Asian law journal, 17(2), 147-170.

http://dx.doi.org/10.19035/nal.2023.17.2.6

Kim, D. (2022). A Study on China’s Arctic Strategies: Focusing on Comparison with

Korea, Korean Association Of Contemporary Chinese Studies 23(4), 1-34.

https://doi.org/10.35820/JMCS.23.4.1

Kim, D. (2026). A study on the development of Japan’s basic ocean policy focusing on

the Arctic. Polar Record, 62(e9), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247426100266

Kuss, Merje. (2020). Regulatory power and region-making in the Arctic: China and the

European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies, 27(4),

https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776420925539

Østhagen, Andreas. (2013). The European Union – An Arctic Actor?. Journal of Military

and Strategic Studies, 15(2): 71-92.

Shin, E. (2024). The EU as geopolitical actor in the Arctic: A perspective of EU’s Arctic

policy. Journal of Global and Area Studies, 8(2), 239–255.

https://doi.org/10.31720/JGA.8.2.12

Yoo, J.-H., & Lee, S.-I. (2020). A study on the establishment of port state control regime

in the Arctic-Northeast Asia in line with the Polar Code. Maritime Law Review, 32(1), 25–

66.

Wilson, P. (2015). Society, steward or security actor? Three visions of the Arctic Council,

51(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715591711

Wood-Donnelly, C. (2023). Evaluating normative capacity through Arctic environmental

governance. Climatic Cha As a result, Europe has developed a multilayered Arctic

governance structure characterized by diverse actors and interconnected roles.nge 176,

127 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03603-3