Politics, Diplomacy, and the Creation of Antarctic Consensus

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-261
Author(s):  
Andrew Jackson

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.

Polar Record ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (152) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

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.


Polar Record ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 26 (158) ◽  
pp. 195-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. N. Blay ◽  
B. M. Tsamenyi

AbstractAustralia, a leading Antarctic state that played a key role in negotiating the Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, in May 1989 announced its opposition to the Convention and adoption instead of a World Park or Wilderness Reserve concept for Antarctica. This article examines possible environmental and economic reasons for Australia's attitude, which is likely to have significant implications for the future of the Convention and for the Antarctic Treaty System as a whole.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 623-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
AJ Tony Press

This short paper examines how the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on Environmental Protection deal with mineral resource activities and the steps that would be required to lift the current ban on mining in the Antarctic.


2021 ◽  
pp. 135406612110338
Author(s):  
Joanne Yao

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document