scholarly journals Marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean: Is the Antarctic Treaty System ready to co-exist with a new United Nations instrument for areas beyond national jurisdiction?

Marine Policy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 122 ◽  
pp. 104212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha B. Gardiner
2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 727-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Cordonnery ◽  
Alan D. Hemmings ◽  
Lorne Kriwoken

The paper examines the process and context of international efforts to designate Marine Protected Areas (mpas) in the Southern Ocean. The relationship between the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (camlr Convention) and the Madrid Protocol is examined in relation to legal, political and administrative norms and practices. A contextual overview of the Antarctic mpa system is considered, followed by an analysis of the overlapping competencies of the camlr Commission (ccamlr) and the Madrid Protocol. The Antarctic mpa debate is placed in a wider international legal context of the management of global oceans space in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We provide an analysis of the politico-legal discourse and point to complicating factors within, and external to, the Antarctic system. The concluding section suggests options for breathing new life into the Southern Ocean mpa discourse.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Dhaxna Sothieson

<p>The international community has recognised Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as an important tool for area-based management of ecosystems. Regional organisations have taken the lead in areas beyond national jurisdiction to create MPAs. This paper will compare the issues facing the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the relevant Antarctic Treaty bodies in the Southern Ocean, to the North-East Atlantic Ocean where the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) are the lead bodies. Many of the issues that face each region in designating MPAs differ due to geopolitical differences; resulting in the North-East Atlantic producing more success in designating a network of MPAs. The North-East Atlantic organisations, however, face more difficulties to ensure the comprehensive management of MPAs. As CCAMLR and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty sit within the Antarctic Treaty System, the potential exists for a better integrated management framework in the Southern Ocean. The themes from both regions will then be put into a wider global context to provide some guidance and identify issues for other regional organisations seeking to establish MPAs in ABNJ.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Dhaxna Sothieson

<p>The international community has recognised Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as an important tool for area-based management of ecosystems. Regional organisations have taken the lead in areas beyond national jurisdiction to create MPAs. This paper will compare the issues facing the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the relevant Antarctic Treaty bodies in the Southern Ocean, to the North-East Atlantic Ocean where the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) are the lead bodies. Many of the issues that face each region in designating MPAs differ due to geopolitical differences; resulting in the North-East Atlantic producing more success in designating a network of MPAs. The North-East Atlantic organisations, however, face more difficulties to ensure the comprehensive management of MPAs. As CCAMLR and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty sit within the Antarctic Treaty System, the potential exists for a better integrated management framework in the Southern Ocean. The themes from both regions will then be put into a wider global context to provide some guidance and identify issues for other regional organisations seeking to establish MPAs in ABNJ.</p>


Polar Record ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

The United Nations (UN) has now been involved with the ‘Question of Antarctica’ for 20 years. Divisions within the international community about the most appropriate form of management for Antarctica, which was presented to the UN as a region of global importance, have never completely disappeared, even if the restoration of a consensus approach during the mid-1990s was based upon a broader appreciation of the merits of the Antarctic Treaty System. Both Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and non-Consultative Parties, pointing to the regime's enduring intrinsic qualities, have adopted an unyielding attitude towards Treaty outsiders advocating a more democratic, accountable, and transparent regime. Even so, the critical lobby, led by Dr Mahathir's Malaysian government, has never gone away. Initially, the ‘Question of Antarctica’ was discussed at the UN on an annual basis, but since 1996 it has been placed on a triennial reference. Following the most recent session in late 2002, the topic is scheduled to be placed on the UN's agenda again in 2005. This article reviews critically the key themes characterising the UN's involvement in the ‘Question of Antarctica’ since 1983, while using successive Polar Record articles on individual UN sessions to provide a framework of reference and an informed basis for further research on the topic.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-131
Author(s):  
Xueping Li

In the name of environmental protection, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting seems to have borrowed the paradigm of international trusteeship of the United Nations for managing the Antarctic land-based protected areas. By comparing and analysing the critical questions highly concerned, this paper offers preliminary thoughts on the development and refinement of the conception of land-based protected areas as a déjà vu system of international trusteeship and its surrounding legal applications and implications in continental Antarctica, and challenges the direction followed by this system in protecting Antarctic intrinsic values in legal discourse.


Polar Record ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (175) ◽  
pp. 257-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

ABSTRACTThe eleventh successive annual United Nations discussion on the ‘Question of Antarctica’ took place at the close of 1993. In November the UN First Committee, guided by two reports from the UN Secretary-General, adopted a further resolution, which was adopted in December by the General Assembly as resolution A48/80. As usual, UN members, although displaying evidence of a wider international recognition of the regime's merits, proved critical of the Antarctic Treaty System. By contrast, Antarctic Treaty Parties (ATPs) remained reluctant to allow the UN the type of role in Antarctica advocated by their critics. ATPs, following the course adopted in 1985, still refused either to participate in the UN discussions or to vote. As a result, it proved impossible yet again to secure a consensus about either the ‘Question of Antarctica’ in general or the UN's role in Antarctica in particular. One significant advance in 1993 concerned the end of demands advanced since 1985 for South Africa's exclusion from Antarctic meetings, a change prompted by the dismantlement of the apartheid regime. The ‘Question of Antarctica’ is scheduled to be placed on the UN agenda in 1994.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Saul ◽  
Tim Stephens

One aspect of the ‘Asian Century’ has been the growing interest from Asian states in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. There has been a significant shift in the approach by a number of Asian states to the Antarctic Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) that has been built upon and around it. While Asian states continue to be under-represented in the ATS (there are seven Asian state parties to the Antarctic Treaty), participation has grown, and more significantly the view that the ATS is an ‘exclusive club’ dominated by developed states has given way to a more pragmatic, more cooperative and less ideological approach to Antarctic affairs. Broadening ATS membership and increasing interest from existing Asian state parties to the ATS, most notably China, prompts questions as to whether there are distinctive Asian–Antarctic issues, and if so whether the Antarctic regime can evolve to address them. Specifically, are the governance and law-making processes of the ATS, which have not changed significantly for decades, up to the task of providing an effective international system of Antarctic management in this Asian Century?


Polar Record ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (151) ◽  
pp. 285-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

AbstractThe enhanced international significance of Antarctica during the 1980s is shown by a proliferation of studies analysing current and future possibilities. The year 1987 proved no exception to this trend; reports issued under the auspices of the European Parliament, the United Nations and the David Davies Memorial Institute of International Affairs reinforced the impression that Antarctica has become a continent surrounded by advice, even if it proves difficult to evaluate how far such reports will influence the policy-makers. Conservation proved a common feature, while the reports, discussed in this article, raise interesting questions about the future of the Antarctic Treaty system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document