Identifying national interests in Antarctica: the case of Canada

Polar Record ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (183) ◽  
pp. 335-346
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
National Interests ◽  
The Past ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Politics And Law ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

ABSTRACTDuring the past decade, most publications on Antarctic politics and law have concentrated upon broader developments at the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) level. Less attention has been devoted to the nature of national interests in Antarctica and ways of balancing different policy objectives through time. Canada, though failing to accede to the Antarctic Treaty until 1988, offers a useful case study illuminating the broad range of interests influencing the policy of individual governments toward Antarctica, and particularly the reasons why states lacking clear national interests therein participate in the ATS. For Canada, Antarctica has always been viewed principally from an Arctic perspective. The resulting low priority of Antarctica explains Canada's initial non-involvement in the ATS. However, by the late 1980s, accession to the Antarctic Treaty was deemed desirable on policy grounds, even if Canada assumed only alow key role in the ATS, at least until 1994–1995, when the appointment of an Ambassador for Circumpolar Affairs was apparently followed by a more active bi-polar strategy.

Australian interests, bifocalism, bipartisanship, and the Antarctic Treaty System

Polar Record ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Haward ◽  
Nicholas Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Political Support ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

ABSTRACTThis article explores the character of domestic political support for the Australian Antarctic Territory and Australia's involvement in the Antarctic Treaty System, using the linked frames of bifocalism and bipartisanship. After first unpacking these concepts it explores how they have shaped the extent and form of Australia's Antarctic endeavours from the 1930s to the present day. It is argued that the analysis shows that bipartisan commitment to Australian interests in Antarctica is framed through bifocalism: first, Australian national interests are closely linked to maintenance of the Antarctic Treaty and Antarctic Treaty System, and second, presentation of these national interests is not inimical to commitments to the Antarctic Treaty and Antarctic Treaty System.

scholarly journals Sea-Borne Tourism in Antarctica: Avenues for Further Intergovernmental Regulation

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Jaap Molenaar
Keyword(s):  
International Association ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Tourism Industry ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cruise Tourism ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

AbstractDuring the past 3,5 decades, sea-borne (cruise) tourism in Antarctica has steadily intensified and diversified. So far, the States involved in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), who have collectively assumed a mandate as well as a responsibility for governing Antarctica, have been relatively passive as a collective and have largely relied on direct and indirect regulation from outside the ATS, most importantly on self-regulation by the tourism industry through the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). In view of the gradual intensification and diversification of Antarctic tourism, the abovementioned responsibility of the Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty (ATCPs) and the need to safeguard the international legitimacy of the ATS, this article examines avenues for further international regulation by the ATCPs. This is in part done by exploring the meaning of the acronym IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) in the sphere of Antarctic sea-borne tourism, to what extent it occurs and how some forms can be addressed.

Problems of The Antarctic Treaty System (Political and Legal Aspects)

2021 ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Pavel Gudev
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Antarctic Waters ◽  
Interstate Conflicts ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

The article considers the key factors that affect the stability of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), erode its basic norms and provisions, lead to strengthening of political and legal contradictions between countries and, in general, to a prospective strengthening of interstate conflicts. Among those factors are the attempts of some claimant states to form maritime zones of sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the Antarctic waters and the process of defining the outer limits of the continental shelf within the framework of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf initiated by them. The author shows how justifying their actions with references to the rights and powers granted to them under modern international maritime law, and above all the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, leads to an imbalance of the entire System. The unresolved questions concerning the applicability of the concept of common heritage of mankind (CCH) to the Antarctic, the legality of the formation of maritime zones around the sub-Antarctic islands and restrictions on the exercise of national jurisdiction on the continent itself increase pressure on the sustainability of the established legal regime. It is in the interests of the Russian Federation not to allow the complete destruction of the established system of governance, and if it is inevitable, to be ready to pursue an active policy to defend its national interests.

The United Nations and Antarctica, 2002: ‘constructive engagement’ between the Antarctic Treaty System and the United Nations

Polar Record ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Past ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Constructive Engagement ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

An international hierarchy of science: conquest, cooperation, and the 1959 Antarctic Treaty System

2021 ◽  
pp. 135406612110338
Author(s):  
Joanne Yao
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Social Performance ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
International Status ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), created in 1959 to govern the southern continent, is often lauded as an illustration of science’s potential to inspire peaceful and rational International Relations. This article critically examines this optimistic view of science’s role in international politics by focusing on how science as a global hierarchical structure operated as a gatekeeper to an exclusive Antarctic club. I argue that in the early 20th century, the conduct of science in Antarctica was entwined with global and imperial hierarchies. As what Mattern and Zarakol call a broad hierarchy, science worked both as a civilized marker of international status as well as a social performance that legitimated actors’ imperial interests in Antarctica. The 1959 ATS relied on science as an existing broad hierarchy to enable competing states to achieve a functional bargain and ‘freeze’ sovereignty claims, whilst at the same time institutionalizing and reinforcing the legitimacy of science in maintaining international inequalities. In making this argument, I stress the role of formal international institutions in bridging our analysis of broad and functional hierarchies while also highlighting the importance of scientific hierarchies in constituting the current international order.

Twenty years on: the UN and the ‘Question of Antarctica,’ 1983–2003

Polar Record ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Community ◽  
Consensus Approach ◽  
Annual Basis ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Malaysian Government ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document