Institutional development in the framework of the Antarctic Treaty system

The institutional approach followed by the Antarctic Treaty has been of a rather elemental nature. In spite of the fact that the academic and diplomatic debate that preceded this instrument had a strong institutional emphasis, the negotiators of the Treaty opted for the machinery of Consultative Meetings, i.e. for the Consultative Parties to meet periodically on a rotational basis, without the support of permanent organs. This decision was certainly closely related to the question of the disputed claims of sovereignty since certain countries feared that any form of institutionalization might, as a concomitant, signify a process of internationalization that would affect their claims or rights.

Within this approach, the central role in the management of the Antarctic Treaty system devolves on the Consultative Parties, whether founder members or whether admitted subsequently. Even though the latter, in accordance with the Treaty, participate only during such time as they demontrate an interest in Antarctica by conducting substantial scientific research there, the exercise of rights is identical for all the Consultative Parties. Furthermore, there is little likelihood in practice that a State that has acceded as a Consultative Party would subsequently be deprived of that status.