The paper rejects the suggestion of Arctic exceptionalism and remoteness from the international system, but agrees with the observation of much Arctic International Relations research. The argument of the paper is two-fold. First, the Arctic has been an integrated part of the international system for centuries; IR theory is necessary to understand the Arctic, which can be a useful theoretical case. Second, much Arctic IR research ignored this systemic embeddedness because of remoteness and groupthink. The Arctic has always reflected international systemic developments: Seven Years’, Napoleonic, Crimean, World War I and II, the Cold War, Ukraine crisis and the rise of China. The Arctic saw intense combat (WWII) and extreme levels of militarization (Cold War), never over Arctic resources or conflicts, but because of geostrategic location in great power conflict. The Arctic remains central for strategic balance, missile defense and space war. System spillover has deeply influenced Arctic communities politically, economically, socially, culturally, technologically and health-wise, for instance, through pollution. However, much Arctic IR scholarship has ignored the systemic drivers of Arctic affairs, while outside IR has paid little attention to the region. Perhaps, remoteness explains this double ignorance. International systemic processes were far from local concerns and experiences, Arctic IR affected by groupthink, and Arctic geopolitics hidden from Southern scholars. In contrast, the geostrategic importance of the Arctic continues to be clear at especially the strategic policy-level. This attention has often been outside the public and civilian academic eye, which is both a democratic and research problem.
