Arctic resource grabs and armament bely the claims that international law has ensured an atmosphere of cooperation in the Arctic

Beyond these legal infirmities, there are a bevy of political and economic reasons that indicate that if the Arctic is going to remain a place of peace and energy development, then the current status quo will need to change. Unfortunately, formalists still argue that the Arctic is a venue of “orderly development on the basis of the law of the sea”, noting with particular interest the Ilulissat Declaration and the supposedly conciliatory acts that Russia has taken in re its CLCS applications.⁷⁸ They obstinately contend that international law will be enough to protect the current order and maintain peace and stability (concluding that the opposition has “fantasies” of a new cold war) one even laughably concluding that “all ocean-related issues fall to be governed by the provisions of [UNCLOS].”⁷⁹ Despite the formalists' viewing the Arctic through rose- colored glasses, the political reality indicates that the previous Ilulissat Declaration, and the supposed “cooperation” that went with it is quickly fading. First consider that the Declaration was released on May 28, 2007, almost two months before the release of the USGS CARA study that reopened the possibility of energy development.⁸⁰ Thus, the very declaration that the international law-centric formalists depend on became obsolete two months after its release in the face of a wholly new environment in the Arctic. Since then, the Arctic has continued to become a place of international tension, especially as Russian relations with the West have begun to sour.⁸¹ Furthermore, the continued armament of Arctic states hardly warrants discussion from those who believe that the Arctic is stable under current law, but the continued outfitting of Russian and Canadian naval forces would indicate greater problems.⁸²