I agree very much with that. I think the key is—and I'm sure you heard this from DFAIT on Tuesday—that there's not a governance vacuum in the Arctic, which is one of the drivers for people suggesting that we need to create a treaty-based organization or a need to beef up the Arctic Council to give it more teeth. Large clusters of international law apply. I think the centrality of UNCLOS is a reflection of the Arctic coastal states dispelling the myth that there is an Arctic race or that the Arctic is the next great game and that there is a potential for conflict erupting over uncertain boundaries.
I think the reason why UNCLOS has been pushed to the forefront is to say that driving myth, that misconception, is wrong. That was the message coming out of Ilulissat. I think your concern that people think UNCLOS is the solution for everything is a very simplistic way of looking at it. As you're suggesting, it's recognizing there are other areas and there are other global agreements: the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities. These are all things that relate to the environmental piece of what's happening in the Arctic.
I think there is a role for the Arctic Council to continue to do research to coordinate and figure out where those governance gaps exist, but I don't think that means that the Arctic Council takes responsibility.