I don't see any perils, legally speaking, for that. If “in the tent” means being a member of the Arctic Council, as long as the Arctic Council is not seen as essentially legislating matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Arctic coastal states but dealing with matters that collaboratively they want to put before the council, then that seems to me to be worthwhile.
If there's navigation of the kind that Professor Byers mentions is a strong possibility, it's going to involve China. We're going to want China there to deal with issues relating to navigation. Climate change and atmospheric pollution are all affecting large numbers of countries. They have to be involved in that. My concern is to know when you want to deal with the Arctic Five alone and when you want to deal with the Arctic Council.
There is a suggestion coming out of Europe that we need to have a new regime dealing with matters that are essentially under the domestic jurisdiction of the Arctic coastal states. I think to allow that impression to continue is actually not a good idea.