As we are reminded by the European Union the historic framework of the Arctic is the following: The period 2005-2010 has been the warmest ever recorded in the Arctic, and this area is foreseen not to have ice during summer season of the next 30-40 years. These radical changes could potentially free the access to vast natural resources, such as oil and natural gas, and allow creating maritime routes which could eventually render significant commercial routes between Europe and Asia shorter and less costly. The Arctic Council constitutes the predominant international forum whose mission is sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic region. It consists of the Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, also representing Greenland and Faroe Islands, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Russian Federation, Sweden, the United States of America). Organizations of indigenous populations are Arctic Council permanent members. In December 2008, an application to acquire observer status was submitted by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union. This application was confirmed at the end 2011. Decision on this application is anticipated to be taken during the Arctic Council Ministerial Conference to take place in Kiruna in May 2013. Thus, it is this framework that we refer to in order to comprehend the change of US stance towards UNCLOS. For, the USA was the only Arctic Council country which has not signed it. Earlier the US concept was as follows: why to sign a text de jure limiting the USA to 200 NM, while in the Pacific and Atlantic there is no states close enough preventing them from expanding their EEZ to 350 NM? Therefore, changing phase derives from the possibilities to be offered by the Arctic, and the US Congress has made a direct mention to this area. Even though US elections delay the process – for, it is considered that there should be no exploitation on the issue by the parties and that the voting should take place later, US are anticipated to change doctrine on this matter. Thus, in this wary, we will have one additional state and, of course, one additional argument supporting the Greek EEZ, which by that time will have been proclaimed and we will have entered negotiations with other states on delimitation and median line. Therefore, from now we should reckon this with our future quiver; especially at this period when Cyprus is running the EU Presidency. The EEZ issue is not bipolar, which is practically proved by the Arctic region.