antarctic treaty
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

562
(FIVE YEARS 83)

H-INDEX

18
(FIVE YEARS 4)

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-131
Author(s):  
Xueping Li

In the name of environmental protection, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting seems to have borrowed the paradigm of international trusteeship of the United Nations for managing the Antarctic land-based protected areas. By comparing and analysing the critical questions highly concerned, this paper offers preliminary thoughts on the development and refinement of the conception of land-based protected areas as a déjà vu system of international trusteeship and its surrounding legal applications and implications in continental Antarctica, and challenges the direction followed by this system in protecting Antarctic intrinsic values in legal discourse.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 415-433
Author(s):  
Alexandra L. Carleton

Whilst satellite observations over the Polar Regions yield vastly beneficial scientific knowledge, ethical questions complicate their use in the context of the Polar Regions, in particular, questions about military or strategic advantage vis-a-vis human security concerns. The Antarctic Treaty System is committed to use of its space for peaceful purposes which, in the fulfilment of high-level science, seems plausible. Yet where military endeavour is coupled with such scientific endeavour, or where global security concerns seek an entree to the knowledge acquired by such observation, the question of whether either Pole can remain free from human non-peaceful purpose is bedevilling.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-194
Author(s):  
Alan D. Hemmings

The demilitarisation provisions of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty are limited and contingent. Critically, a functional gap is enabled within the key Article I, which both prohibits ‘measures of a military nature’ and sanctions the use of military personnel and equipment in pursuit of ‘peaceful purposes’. None of the key terms and concepts are defined. With increasing focus on and in the Antarctic Treaty Area on interstate competition around resource access and regime control, and in particular the rapidly increasing geopolitical struggle between ‘the West’ and China both globally and within the Antarctic, and the transformation of what military activity actually entails, the existing demilitarisation principles are now inadequate. The failure to update these in the 60 years since the Antarctic Treaty was adopted, the lack of confidence that the historic Antarctic Treaty model of regional governance can itself manage the struggle, and indications over recent years that some states are even increasing the level of military entanglement with their Antarctic programmes, suggest it is now timely to reassess and respond to the case for substantive demilitarisation in the Antarctic Treaty Area.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-107
Author(s):  
Trevor Daya-Winterbottom

The Antarctic Treaty 1959 has now been in place for 60 years and is regarded by informed commentators as one of the most successful multi-party international treaty systems. This paper provides an opportunity to look back and take stock of previous success, and more importantly, an opportunity to assess the future prospects of the treaty system. New Zealand has played a key role in the Antarctic Treaty system and has had a long involvement with Antarctica since accepting the transfer of sovereignty over the Ross Dependency in 1923. This paper therefore focuses on the effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty system through a New Zealand lens.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-86
Author(s):  
Sakiko Hataya

Built in 2009, Kunlun Station, China’s third Antarctic research station, is located in the Dome A region. In 2013, during the 36th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), China proposed the establishment of a new Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA) within Dome A and prepared a draft management plan for it. Yet, several ATCM members questioned China’s motives for designating Dome A as a new ASMA, and, as a result, no consensus could be reached. Surprisingly however, the Chinese ASMA proposal spurred a new impulse to introduce guidelines for the designation of ASMAs. This paper explores the legal implications of China’s proposal for an ASMA at Kunlun Station in Dome A and, in particular, focuses on the new legal developments that followed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-40
Author(s):  
David Leary

Its isolation and extreme climate means Antarctica is one of the world’s richest regions for untouched geoheritage. The potential of mining in Antarctica is often talked of in public discourse as a future threat to Antarctica even though the prohibition on mining is absolute and is likely to stay so indefinitely. As such mining does not pose a realistic threat to Antarctica’s geoheritage. The impacts of scientific research and tourism pose more pressing challenges to Antarctica’s geoheritage. This paper considers emerging debates in the Antarctic Treaty System on the need for further protection of Antarctica’s geoheritage. After considering the concept of geoheritage the paper considers key threats to Antarctic geoheritage. The role of Antarctic Specially Protected Area system in the protection of Antarctica’s geoheritage is then considered as is the draft code of conduct on geosciences field research currently being developed within the Antarctic Treaty System. The final part of the paper then goes on to examine how the Antarctic Treaty system could in part draw on the experience of other international initiatives, including the frameworks associated with the UNESCO Global Geoparks movement in developing an Antarctic System for protection of geoheritage.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-74
Author(s):  
Osamu Inagaki

The purpose of this paper is to explore possible legal issues concerning the Dronning Maud Land Air Network (DROMLAN) under the Antarctic Treaty system. By examining the recent discussion concerning DROMLAN within the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and relevant State practice, this paper argues that States parties have difficulty in fully complying with the obligations of advanced notice under Article VII (5) of the Antarctic Treaty and Environmental Impact Assessment under Article VIII (2) of the Madrid Protocol for DROMLAN’s operation. Finally, this paper suggests that good communication among relevant States parties and private actors is important for enhancing compliance with these obligations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-60
Author(s):  
Katharina Heinrich

Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) are covering nearly two-thirds of the world’s oceans and are rich in biological diversity. These also include the Polar Regions, where marine organisms adapted to extreme environments and led to increased scientific interest and activities, including bioprospecting activities. As a result, marine biodiversity is increasingly threatened. Thus, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) was established to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity but left ABNJ and bioprospecting activities widely unregulated. In Antarctica, for instance, bioprospecting has raised concerns, and the matter has been discussed since 2002. As a result, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 69/292 concluded the establishment of a new international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity for ABNJ. However, the inclusion of the Antarctic Treaty Area remains unclear. In light of the current BBNJ negotiations, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) only acknowledges the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) as the appropriate framework to regulate these activities in Antarctica. Further, it seems to aim for regulation under the ATS, if at all. Therefore, this paper discusses a solution-based approach for possible regulation of the collection and use of Antarctic marine biodiversity. The negotiations and achievements of the current BBNJ process will be taken into account, as they might provide support for the regulation of these issues in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-242
Author(s):  
James Harrison

Abstract Marine protected areas (MPA s) are an important tool for protecting marine ecosystems both within and beyond national jurisdiction, but the integrated management of MPA s is challenging due to the institutional fragmentation that exists in international ocean governance at global and regional levels. In the absence of fundamental reform of international ocean governance, integrated management of MPA s can at present only be achieved through cross-sectoral cooperation and coordination between relevant international institutions. Understanding regime interaction in this context requires an analysis of both the relevant legal framework and the manner in which coordination mechanisms operate in practice. This article carries out a case study of regime interaction between the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, as well as other relevant institutions, in order to identify the key opportunities and challenges for promoting the integrated management of regional MPA networks in practice. It will also consider how the cooperative arrangements for the regional management of the Southern Ocean may provide lessons for the development of a new legally binding instrument for the conservation and management of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document