CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

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.

100