The practicalities of domestic legislation to prohibit mining activity in Antarctica: a comment on the Australian perspective

Polar Record ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (172) ◽  
pp. 23-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Blay ◽  
Julia Green
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Human Activity ◽  
Mining Activity ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
General Objection ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Antarctic Environment

AbstractAfter its rejection of the Minerals Convention adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) in 1988, Australia took a major step in its domestic law by enacting the Antarctic Mining Prohibition Act of 1991 (AMPA), to reinforce its general objection to mineral resource activities in Antarctica and its commitment to the protection ofthe Antarctic environment. With the adoption of the Protocol on Environmental Protectionto the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol) – which required the parties to take steps to implement its provisions, including the enactment of domestic legislation – Australia enacted the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) Act (ATEPA). The ATEPA is meant to replace the AMPA once the Madrid Protocol comes into force. The Protocol bans mineral resource activities in Antarctica and adopts a comprehensive regime toregulate all human activity in Antarctica in an effort to protect the region's environment. As legislation to implement the Protocol, the principal objectives of the ATEPAare to prohibit mineral resource activities in the Australian Antarctic Territory and toregulate all human activity that may have a direct impact on the environment in the area. It also prohibits Australian nationals from engaging in mineral resource activities elsewhere in Antarctica. Like Australia, a number of ATCPs have either adopted legislationor are developing legislation in their domestic legal systems to implement the Protocol.It is one thing for the Protocol to demand the adoption of domestic legislation to ensure compliance with its provisions, including the ban on mining; it is quite another thingto develop effective domestic legislation on the issue. Given the absence of any knowncommercially exploitable deposits of minerals in Antarctica, the likelihood of any mineralresource activity in the region is very remote. But should mining activity occur in Antarctica in breach of the Protocol, the enforcement of the ban could be fraught with practical, legal, and policy difficulties. This paper examines the domestic legislative efforts by Australia as a leading ATCP to ban mining activity in Antarctica. Even though the discussion focuses on Australia by examining its legislation, the problems and the issues raised in the Australian context are also relevant to other ATCPs generally and to claimants in particular.

Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: a major addition to the Antarctic Treaty System

Polar Record ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (152) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

AbstractIn June 1988, at the final session of the Fourth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) was adopted, bringing to a successful conclusion six years of negotiations. Christopher Beeby, chairman of the discussions, presented the convention as the most important political development affecting Antarctica since the 1959 treaty, especially as it established the ability of the Antarctic Treaty System to reach an internal accommodation even upon matters raising serious political, legal, environmental and other issues. There remain uncertainties regarding the future development of the Antarctic minerals question; for example, when will the minerals convention and the proposed institutional framework come into effect, will its ratification encourage mining, can the fragile Antarctic environment be adequately protected against mining, how will certain key terms and concepts be defined, and will the regime's operation bring latent tensions to the surface? It is also difficult to predict how other governments will react to the convention, in the light of recent UN resolutions on Antarctica. The convention is perceived within the Antarctic Treaty system as a significant development, but it will be some time before a considered evaluation of the Antarctic Minerals Regime can be conducted.

New Trends in the Protection of the Antarctic Environment: The 1991 Madrid Protocol

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 377-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. N. Blay
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment

In June 1991, the Antarctic Treaty states, meeting in Madrid, Spain, approved the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol). The Protocol was adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and opened for signature on October 4, 1991. Negotiated over a three-year period, the Protocol, together with its annexes, is the most comprehensive multilateral document ever adopted on the international protection of the environment. It promises to be a significant blueprint for preserving the Antarctic. An ironic feature of the Protocol is that, while it bans mining in Antarctica, it had its origins in the 1988 Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA), which permitted mining.

Epilogue

2019 ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Alessandro Antonello
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Environmental Agreements ◽  
Natural Element ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic

This epilogue reflects on Antarctic diplomacy and science after 1980 in light of the greening of Antarctica that occurred after 1959. It suggests ways in which the failed ratification of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) of 1988 and the successful negotiation of the Madrid Protocol of 1991 closely followed the intellectual and conceptual contours laid down between 1959 and 1980 in the major environmental agreements following the Antarctic Treaty. It also reflects on the seeming absence of ice—the dominant natural element in Antarctica—from early and recent Antarctic geopolitics and how ice might affect future Antarctic diplomacy and geopolitics.

scholarly journals How do we know that the Antarctic environment is fine?

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
D.W.H. Walton
Keyword(s):  
Ross Sea ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
United Nations Environment Programme ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
State Of The Environment ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Nations Environment ◽  
Environment Programme ◽  
Antarctic Environment

One might imagine that the only continent in the world devoted to peace and science would be certain to play a leadership role in global questions that needed a scientific answer. Indeed, to a dispassionate observer, the present situation with respect to reporting on the state of the Antarctic environment must seem bizarre. All the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are members of the United Nations Environment Programme, and all are apparently committed to providing State of the Environment Reports for their respective regions. Why then have some of these very nations been so reluctant to accept that Antarctica is a key part of this world and, to provide the holistic view required, needs to be included in the reporting? The list of excuses for delay is lengthy: no money; no secretariat to organize through; likely to be too expensive; no clear reason to undertake it; not needed at present; who would be the audience; how would we maintain political oversight; etc. but none of them ever appeared insoluble. This has been clearly demonstrated by the recent publication by New Zealand of a State of the Environment Report for the Ross Sea Region.

scholarly journals Treaty on Antarctic minerals and oil – what impact on science and environment?

1989 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-191
Author(s):  
John C. Behrendt
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Legitimate Concern ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Antarctic Environment

The Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) was adopted in 1988. Of legitimate concern to all Antarctic scientists is CRAMRA's impact on the Antarctic environment and on the conduct of research; the treaty will have a positive effect on both.

scholarly journals Antarctic politics and Antarctic science — are they at loggerheads?

1991 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-123
Author(s):  
John A Heap
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment

“Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only …… Freedom of scientific investigation and co-operation toward that end …… shall continue, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty.”These are the fundamental objectives of the Antarctic Treaty as expressed in Articles I and II. What follows in the Treaty, and in most of the many “Recommendations” to the Governments of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), is aimed at securing these objectives by the creation of a framework of law. Unusually for a system of laws, most of this legal framework is hortatory rather than mandatory in character - it cajoles rather than orders. Perhaps not surprisingly this has given rise to damaging suggestions about its ability to provide adequate protection for the Antarctic environment. The response of the ATCPs to this criticism has been to embark on a review of existing Antarctic law, to make it more consistent, reduce overlaps and more especially, make much of it mandatory. This process began at the XIth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Chile last November. Since it aims to provide greater clarity, accessibility and certainty in the law, it must be welcomed. But within these admirable objectives a prospect of loggerheads begins to loom.

Politics, Diplomacy, and the Creation of Antarctic Consensus

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-261
Author(s):  
Andrew Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Primary Mechanism ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Environmental Measures ◽  
New Research ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Unanimous Agreement ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

This paper examines the operation of consensus within the Antarctic Treaty System, examining its role as the primary mechanism for achieving important decisions affecting Antarctic governance. It points out that consensus does not equal unanimous agreement, but it does rely on the absence of formal objection. As an example, the paper focuses on the shift from the 1988 Antarctic minerals convention (which regulated possible mineral resource activities) to the 1991 environmental protocol (which prohibited such activities and put in place comprehensive environmental measures). The events and processes associated with this short but important period in Antarctic history are examined to present a picture of the complexity of factors that can influence the achievement of consensus. The paper draws on new research sources, made possible by the recent release of government archives relating to the events discussed. It thus complements existing analyses which relied on the limited publicly accessible records of the inner workings of Treaty meetings and the diplomatic interactions of Treaty Parties. It concludes by pointing to the ongoing importance of consensus as the Treaty System continues to grow.

scholarly journals Antarctic environmental planning and management: conclusions from Casey, Australian Antarctic Territory

Polar Record ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 27 (160) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorne K. Kriwoken
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Environmental Planning ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Environmental Legislation ◽  
Planning And Management ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment ◽  
Environmental Planning And Management

AbstractThe Antarctic environment has undergone significant local environmental damage and degradation, with nations rebuilding, expanding, or developing stations and bases. The Australian Antarctic Division's ten-year (1985–95) A$76.704 million programme of rebuilding and expanding stations in Australian Antarctic Territory is representative of a continent-wide increase in station numbers and impact, increasing station size, human numbers, lengths of roads, buildings, waste material production, and energy requirements. Environmental planning and impact assessment have not been incorporated in official decision-making; human activities at Australian Antarctic Territory stations had serious impacts on the limited ice-free land and local flora and fauna. Casey, are-developed station, is examined with reference to environmental planning and management under Antarctic Treaty obligations and recent Australian environmental legislation. Recommendations include the setting up of an Australian Antarctic Resources Committee responsible inter alia for environmental planning and management, including regional and station management plans and cumulative and environmental impact assessment for all Antarctic operations.

The settlement of disputes under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

Polar Record ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (179) ◽  
pp. 399-408
Author(s):  
Martijn Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Comprehensive System ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Military Activity ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment ◽  
Extensive Damage

ABSTRACTSince the Antarctic Treaty came into operation, Antarctic affairs have been characterised by international cooperation. The major issues of potential conflict, namely sovereignty, military activity, and mining, have now been largely removed. As a result, the remaining disagreements between parties have been resolved through consultation and negotiation. No dispute has ever found its way to judicial settlement, with most disagreements usually resolved at an early stage through ATCMs. While there is no reason to suspect that the use of consultation and negotiation will not continue, with the introduction of far more comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment, combined with the significant increase in activity in and around the continent, there is a greater likelihood of situations occurring that clearly breach these principles or give rise to a dispute. In addition, where extensive damage to the environment has already occurred, negotiation may be limited, so that the other mechanisms for settling disputes must be instituted. The dispute procedures of the Protocol, taken almost entirely from CRAMRA, represent the most comprehensive system for the peaceful settlement of disputes arising in any Antarctic instrument to date. However, clear problems such as remedies, enforcement, and uncertainties with respect to standing and liability remain. Until these problems are resolved, all aspects of all disputes cannot be covered, and comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment specified in the Protocol will remain an objective, not a reality.

scholarly journals Providing expert scientific advice on the Antarctic environment

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.W.H. Walton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Activities ◽  
Scientific Advice ◽  
Politics And Science ◽  
The World ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Antarctic Environment

It is hard to divorce most human activities, including science, completely from politics. Politics is about perceived certainty whilst science is about doubt – they make strange bedfellows. Politicians detest probabilities whilst scientists abhor the absolute. Nowhere is the relationship between politics and science more publicly developed than in the Antarctic Treaty System. In the only continent devoted to peace and science it might be supposed that, after more than thirty years, the role of science would be both more robust and more pivotal in decision-making than elsewhere in the world. So it appears at present but will it remain so?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document