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.

The United Nations and Antarctica 1993: continuing controversy about the UN's role in Antarctica

Polar Record ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (175) ◽  
pp. 257-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Significant Advance ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Recognition ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Apartheid Regime ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

The United Nations' Study on Antarctica, 1984

Polar Record ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 22 (140) ◽  
pp. 499-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Understanding ◽  
Amount Of Information ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

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.

A continent surrounded by advice: recent reports on Antarctica

Polar Record ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (151) ◽  
pp. 285-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Future ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

Survey of Declarations or Statements Made by the Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention: 30 Years after Adoption

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-59
Author(s):  
Yann-huei Song
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Past ◽  
Geographical Regions ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Consultative Process ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

Abstract This article surveys the declarations or statements made by the States or entities under Articles 287, 298, and 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over the past thirty years when they signed, ratified, or acceded to the LOS Convention, or at any time thereafter, with regard to the interpretation and application of certain provisions contained in the Convention. This study shows that differences regarding the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention can be found in the declarations and statements made by States located in different geographical regions. The author suggests that a possible way to amend the Convention is to include an item for discussion in the agenda of future meetings of the UN General Assembly, the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, or State Parties to the Convention.

Antarctica at the United Nations, 1985: the end of consensus?

Polar Record ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 23 (143) ◽  
pp. 159-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Consensus Approach ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
The Future ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Bridge Building ◽  
The Antarctic

ABSTRACTThe question of Antarctica was discussed at the United Nations General Assembly in 1985 for the third successive year. While the content of the debates differed little from that of previous years, the discussions resulted in the adoption, by large majorities, of three resolutions in favour of an expanded and up-dated UN Study on Antarctica, the provision of information for the UN on the Antarctic minerals regime negotiations, and the exclusion of South Africa from the Antarctic Treaty System. The Antarctic Treaty powers, favouring no real UN role in Antarctica, stressed the need to maintain the present arrangements and did not participate in the UN votes on the three resolutions. The apparent breakdown of the consensus approach that was characteristic of 1983 and 1984 raises a question for the future; will 1986 witness bridge-building or continuing divisions on the most appropriate way to manage Antarctica in the future?

The United Nations and Antarctica 1986

Polar Record ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 23 (147) ◽  
pp. 683-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South African ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

The United Nations and Antarctica, 2005: the end of the ‘Question of Antarctica’?

Polar Record ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Major Change ◽  
United Nations Environment Programme ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
First Time ◽  
Nations Environment

In November 2005 the ‘Question of Antarctica’ was taken up yet again by the UN First Committee. Following formal placement upon its agenda in 1983 by the Malaysian government, the UN has discussed the topic regularly, initially annually, then biennially, but more recently upon a triennial basis. As usual, in 2005 UN members were guided by a lengthy report produced for the United Nations Secretary General (UNSG) by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in order to outline recent developments affecting Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty system (ATS). In November 2005 the UN First Committee, acting upon proposed amendments advanced by the Malaysian delegation, agreed to a major change of course. Thus, resolution L60, adopted by the committee without a vote, stipulated that the UN, though remaining ‘seized’ of the ‘Question of Antarctica’, would not place the topic upon the agenda of the 63rd. session in 2008. Nor would the UNSG be required, henceforth, to produce a report on Antarctica for members. In December 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted draft resolution L60 as resolution 60/47, once again without a vote. As a result, for the first time since 1983, the UN is no longer scheduled to return to the ‘Question of Antarctica’. Meanwhile, the episode has raised interesting questions about future developments: the UN's role, if any, in the ‘Question of Antarctica’, the direction of Malaysian policy towards the ATS, including membership thereof; the continued ability of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) to manage Antarctica in a democratic, transparent and accountable manner without attracting criticism from the broader international community; and the relevance of the common heritage principle to the Antarctic region.

France Accused: French North Africa before the United Nations, 1952–1962

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Thomas
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
North Africa ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Algerian War ◽  
North African ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Nationalist Parties ◽  
Major General

In the decade after 1952 France faced sustained United Nations criticism of its colonial policies in north Africa. As membership of the UN General Assembly expanded, support for the non-aligned states of the Afro-Asian bloc increased. North African nationalist parties established their permanent offices in New York to press their case for independence. Tracing UN consideration of French North Africa from the first major General Assembly discussion of Tunisia in 1952 to the end of the Algerian war in 1962, this article considers the tactics employed on both sides of the colonial/anti-colonial divide to manipulate the UN Charter's ambiguities over the rights of colonial powers and the jurisdiction of the General Assembly in colonial disputes.

scholarly journals Proposals for the Negotiation Process on the United Nations Global Compact for Migration

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 682-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Víctor Genina
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Migration ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Global Compact ◽  
Member States ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
High Level

On September 19th, 2016, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted Resolution 71/1, the text of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (the “New York Declaration”). Resolution 71/1 is the outcome document of the high-level plenary meeting on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants, held at the UN headquarters. The New York Declaration reflects how UN member states have decided to address the challenge of large movements of people in two main legal categories: asylum seekers/refugees and migrants. Resolution 71/1 includes an annex titled “Towards a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” (the “global compact for migration” or “global compact”). This document is comprised of several thematic issues related to international migration that will be the basis of a globally negotiated agreement on how member states should respond to international migration at the national, regional, and international levels, as well as to issues related to international migration and development. The global compact for migration is intended to be adopted at a conference on international migration and development before the inauguration of the 73rd annual session of the UN General Assembly in September 2018. This paper addresses how UN member states should plan to address international migration in the future. It does not refer to refugees and asylum seekers: a global compact on refugees will be drafted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2018, and to be presented to the UN General Assembly for states' consideration during its 73rd annual session, which starts in September 2018.1 For those who have been involved in migration issues within the United Nations, the fact that member states have finally agreed to convene an international conference on international migration represents a major achievement. It is the result of an extended process that started decades ago and was made possible by a long chain of efforts by many state delegations and other stakeholders. The global compact for migration will not be the first outcome document dealing exclusively with international migration. A declaration2 adopted at a high-level meeting at the United Nations in October 2013, for example, paved the way for the 2018 conference. Nonetheless, the global compact represents a unique opportunity to address international migration comprehensively and humanely. This paper contributes to the discussion on the elements that should be included in the global compact for migration. The paper is divided into two sections. The first section analyzes the main elements of Annex II, “Towards a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” and the criteria that needs to be adopted in order to achieve a substantive outcome. In particular, participants in the negotiation process should aim to balance the concerns of states and the members of host societies, on one hand, with the needs and rights of migrants, on the other. The second section includes proposals to enrich the final global compact for migration and takes into account two documents written by two different actors within the UN system, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Migration, and the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. In particular, the paper proposes that the global compact for migration: • sets forth principles that can inform the actions of governments in relation to international migration at all levels; • enunciates a clearer definition of state protection responsibilities in relation to migrants in crisis situations and so-called “mixed flows”3; affords a substantive role to civil society organizations, the private sector, and academic institutions in the global compact's follow-up and review process; • defines the institutional framework for the implementation and follow-up of the global compact within the United Nations, including through the work of the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF); • establishes a mechanism to fund migration policies for states that lack enough resources to invest sufficiently in this task; and • builds a cooperation-oriented, peer-review mechanism to review migration policies. The paper has been conceived as an input for those who will take part in the negotiation of the global compact for migration, as well as those who will closely follow those negotiations. Thus, the paper assumes a level of knowledge on how international migration has been addressed within the United Nations during the last several years and of the complexities of these negotiation processes. The author took part in different UN negotiation processes on international migration from 2004 to 2013. The paper is primarily based on this experience.4

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document