116 / 532
100
JAN ONDŘEJ
CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
research. The states will work to strengthen this cooperation, which is based on mutual
trust and transparency,
inter alia
, through timely exchange of data and analyses. The
Declaration also directly mentions other users of the Arctic Ocean. On one hand, it
can be said that the five coastal states do not try to create a kind of closed club. On
the other hand, it is worrying when the
interested parties
beyond the Arctic Ocean
ignore the interests of the coastal states
16
as they are expressed in the Ilulissat Declaration.
Winkler
17
considers even more worrying the fact that some states beyond the Arctic
Ocean ignore the reality that five coastal states recognize their responsibility and take
it seriously.
From the legal point of view the Declaration is a political document which has
the character of a
soft law
without being legally binding. However, it expresses shared
willingness of the five states which refer to the law of the sea. It can be said that
a
comprehensive international legal regime
to govern the Arctic Ocean is contained
18
in
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
19
of 1982. This Convention is today the
most important source of international law of the sea. The Convention, which is an
extensive codification of international law of the sea and refers to all parts of the sea
and the seabed, came into force in 1994. The Ilulissat Declaration does not expressly
mention the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, it is necessary to
mention that four out of the five coastal states are State Parties to the Convention,
as well as are other states in the Arctic region. The only state which is not party to
the Convention is the USA, which, however, recognizes parts of the Convention
a
customary international law.
20
There are, however, also opinions that challenge the applicability of the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 to the Arctic. They point to the fact that
during the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),
which took place between 1973 and 1982, some states in the Arctic – namely Canada,
the USA and the USSR – were not willing to apply the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea of 1982, including its part XI about the
common heritage of mankind
applied to the Arctic Ocean.
21
Vylegzhanin
22
mentions that the Ilulissat Declaration
of 2008 does not expressly mention the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
He also states that the Presidential Directive of the US President of 9 January 2009
referring to the Arctic only mentions customary international law and not the UN
16
Winkler, T., An International Governance Framework for the Arctic Challlenges for International
Public Law – A Danish Perspective.
Zeitschrift fur auslandisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht
, 2009,
69/3, p. 642.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
, p. 643.
19
The text of the Convention is available in Czech as: vyhl. č. 240/1996 Sb.
20
Salcido, R. E., Law Applicable on the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Exclusive Economic Zone.
The American Journal of International Law
. 2010, Volume 58, p. 407.
21
Vylegzhanin, A. N., Developing International Law Teachings for Preventing Inter-State Disaccord in
the Arctic Ocean. 2009,
ZaoRV
69/3, p. 671.
22
Ibid.
, p. 670.