The United Nations and Antarctica 1986

Polar Record ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 23 (147) ◽  
pp. 683-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.J. Beck

AbstractIn November 1986 the United Nations considered again the ‘Question of Antarctica’ and published a further study, up-dating and developing that produced in 1984 and guiding UN First Committee discussions of 18–19 November 1986. Three resolutions were adopted concerning availability of information to the UN on Antarctica, a moratorium on the Antarctic minerals regime negotiations, and the exclusion of South Africa as a Consulative Party. Most Antarctic Treaty parties did not vote; the consensus that characterized UN debates on Antarctica in 1983 and 1984 has yet to be restored. The 1986 session suggested more questions rather than providing answers; a key question is whether the Antarctic Treaty System will preserve its unity in view of the problem of continuing South African membership.

Polar Record ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (150) ◽  
pp. 207-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

AbstractThe UN Secretary-General's third Report of September 1987 provided the background for the fifth annual round of the UN's consideration of the ‘Question of Antarctica’. The First Committee's discussions in November 1987 resulted in the adoption by large majorities of two further UN resolutions in favour of a moratorium on the Antarctic minerals regime negotiations, an enhanced UN role in the operations of the Antarctic Treaty System, and the exclusion of South Africa from Consultative Meetings. On the surface, the session might be dismissed as yet another ‘sterile annual UN ritual’, serving to confirm the international community's lack of consensus about the future management of Antarctica. In reality, the episode, suggesting that the UN/Antarctic relationship may be at the crossroads, offered several points of interest, including increased signs of strain within the Antarctic Treaty System consequent upon the South African issue, and a greater appreciation by the critics of the need to work for change within the framework of the existing Antarctic Treaty regime.


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.


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.


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.


Polar Record ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (155) ◽  
pp. 329-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

ABSTRACTThe struggle between Antarctic Treaty Parties and their UN critics regarding the management of Antarctica was resumed in November 1988 when, for the sixth successive year, the United Nations discussed the 'Question of Antarctica'. This year the UN adopted two further resolutions reaffirming demands of 1987 for wider participation in the minerals negotiations, the involvement of the UN Secretary-General in Antarctic Treaty System operations, and the exclusion of South Africa from treaty meetings. The Treaty Parties seem unlikely to heed these resolutions. Reforms within the Treaty System are the most likely means of progress for the critics, althoough Australia's critique of the Minerals Convention has introduced an element of uncertainty.


Polar Record ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

At the close of 2002, the United Nations (UN), acting in accordance with its 1999 resolution A54/45, returned to the ‘Question of Antarctica,’ which is currently being placed upon the agenda of the General Assembly's First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) every three years. In 2002, the First Committee's discussions, informed yet again by a report produced by the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) updating members about recent Antarctic developments, reaffirmed the varying perspectives existing within the international community about the management of Antarctica. Following statements delivered by the Polish delegate on behalf of the Antarctic Treaty Parties (ATPs) and the Malaysian representative, the First Committee adopted another consensus draft resolution. Subsequently, the UN General Assembly, acting by consensus without a vote, formally adopted the First Committee's draft as resolution A57/51, which basically updated the wording of that adopted in 1999. Thus, the UNSG was instructed to produce another report to guide the next UN session on the ‘Question of Antarctica’ scheduled for 2005. Although the UN discussions on the topic in 2002 proved relatively brief and low key, the actions of Malaysia during the past year or so have raised a number of questions about the future course of the ‘Question of Antarctica,’ given its lead role in first raising the topic at the UN in 1983 and then maintaining pressure upon the Antarctic Treaty System.


Polar Record ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 22 (140) ◽  
pp. 499-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

AbstractIn 1983 the UN Secretary-General was requested by the General Assembly to prepare a ‘Study on the question of Antarctica’ for the 1984 meeting of the Assembly. Published in November 1984, the Study provided a foundation for the UN First Committee's discussions of 28–30 November. These demonstrated, as had the discussions of the previous year, the polarization of views among UN member states for and against the Antarctic Treaty System. The UN resolution that followed the discussions similarly represented little advance on that of 1983, merely postponing any decision for a further year. Meanwhile the considerable amount of information marshalled for the Study may help to spread interest in Antarctic affairs and enhance international understanding.


2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 1061-1090
Author(s):  
Max du Plessis

The ICC considered two central questions: First, whether South Africa failed to comply with its obligations under the statute by not arresting and surrendering Al-Bashir to the Court while he was in South African territory despite having received a request from the ICC under Articles 87 and 89 of the Statute for his arrest and surrender. Second, whether a formal finding of noncompliance by South Africa in this respect and referral of the matter to the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute or to the United Nations Security Council are warranted.


Polar Record ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (180) ◽  
pp. 25-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus J. Dodds

AbstractThe South African state has never made a formal claim to the Antarctic continent. In the inter-war period, the South African government prepared a number of memorandums and discussion papers on the subject of a ‘South African sector in the Antarctic.’ This paper not only critically interprets those government papers, but, more importantly, assesses the reasons why South Africa never made a formal claim. It is suggested that relations with Britain and the Empire, as well as the activities of Norway and the United States, were crucial determining factors. Finally, the implications for later South African involvement in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic Treaty System are briefly considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document