http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee 297 David López Morales Terrae ultima thule: Cooperation in the Artic region postponement. They made an interim solution but they have to find a proper solution in the future about the status of the Observer States”93. Although authors such as Stenlund believe that an AC with more members and more power for the Observers would be beneficial94, if the A-8 continue to adhere to the collective action dilemma, everything seems to indicate that they will not allow the developments to diminish their power, given that “large groups are less able to act in the common interest than small ones”95. In conclusion, the AC has enabled the creation of knowledge and consensus for the implementation of cooperation agreements, but it has not allowed itself to adapt in a way that would make its agreements binding96. The development of a “security community”97 is highly unlikely as long as the A-8 continue to stick to the collective action approach and the A-5 keep the issues set out in the Ilulissat Declaration separate. In other words, this will not occur as long as there are no “shared political security identities and values”98. The fact that it is a soft law institution should not be seen as a limitation, however, because it has been capable of making considerable contributions to the creation of public goods and sustainable development in the region99 as well as laying the foundation for cooperation that has lasted more than 20 years. We will conclude with the desire for cooperation expressed at the ministerial meeting in Iqaluit in 2015, where the United States, on taking over the chairmanship of the Council, stated that the goals for the next four years would be: identifying shared opportunities, challenges and responsibilities to create a region highlighted by exceptional international cooperation100. SOVEREIGNTY CLAIMS Finally, we are going to carry out a legal analysis to assess the tensions surrounding sovereignty claims to the extended continental shelf in the Arctic. Firstly, however, 93 Extract from the interview with Professor Timo Koivurova, op cit. 94 STENLUND, Peter, “Lessons in regional cooperation from the Arctic”, Ocean and Coastal Management 45, 2002, p.837. 95 OLSON, 1985, p.45. 96 STOKKE, Regimen interplay in the Arctic, 68-70. 97 INGIMUNDARSON, op. cit., p.188. 98 EILSTRUP-SANGIOVANNI, Mette, “Uneven Power and the Pursuit of Peace: How Regional Power Transitions Motive Integration”, p. 102. 99 STENLUND. op. cit., p.839. 100 PAPP, Robert J, Jr., Admiral, US Arctic Council Chairmanship: Outlining Goals and Priorities,
REVISTA_IEEE_10
To see the actual publication please follow the link above