Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You said that the mandate of the Arctic Council, through negotiation, creates restrictive tools. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea aims to define the boundaries of territorial waters, and not the use of a certain part of the planet. Do you think regulating the use and interstate relations related to the Arctic is sufficient?
A lot of problems have already come up with respect to the environment, and things are changing quickly. Both witnesses agree that the main issue is protecting the environment. Under these conditions, I'm wondering if the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is really the international tool that should apply in the Arctic. There have already been a number of attempts to adopt a specific treaty for the Arctic. Unfortunately, the United States did not sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and did not want to ratify that kind of treaty.
Do you not think the Arctic Council should encourage the adoption of an instrument of international law that would govern interstate relations, rather than let the states settle their issues themselves, bilaterally?