Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T20:32:37.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Antarctic Minerals Regime and its Environmental Impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Aukje Visser
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On June 2, 1988, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Activities was concluded after several years of negotiations. Starting with a review of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the author discusses the new Convention and the organs it has created. Special attention is paid to the possible impact of mineral activities to the unique environment of Antarctica, and the safeguards which are offered by the Convention in this respect. According to the author, it can be doubted whether the regime's institutions will adequately account for the environmental consequences of mineral activities.

Type
Student Contributions
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1988 , pp. 171 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Dolman, AJ. Resources, Regimes, World Order 255 (1985).Google Scholar

2. 402 U.N.T.S. 71, Art. VI. See Triggs, Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty System: A Balance of Prudence 1986 Energy Law (Seminar Proceedings, International Bar Association Section on Energy and Natural Resources Law) 469–480.

3. Art. IX(2). These acceding counlries are: Poland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China, Uruguay, the German Democratic Republic and Italy.

4. Art. IX(1).

5. The Non-Consultative Parties are: Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Czechoslowakia, Denmark, Equador, Finland, Greece, Hungary, The Netherlands, Norlh Korea, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Romania, South Korea, Spain and Sweden.

6. Moreover, Antarctica is the first nuclear free zone in the world; consequently nuclear explosions and dumping of radioactive waste are prohibited. See Art. V(l).

7. Arts. II, III.

8. Triggs, supra, note 2, at 439.

9. Indicated are the years in which these states made their first claims to territorial sovereignty.

10. Antarctica is expected to have enormous amounts of mineral resources like coal, gas, oil, silver, platinum, copper, iron-ore, cobalt, nickel, uranium, and chrome. See Peterson, Antarctica: The Great Land Rush on Earth, 34 International Organization 384–387 (1980).

11. Francioni, Legal Aspects of Minerals Exploitation in Antarctica, 19 Cornell International Law Journal, 165 (1986).Google Scholar

12. Joyner, The Evolving Antarctic Minerals Regime in Ocean Development and International Law, 19 Journal of Marine Affairs (1988).Google Scholar

13. Tractatenblad 1983, no. 57.

14. Joyner, The Antarctic Minerals Negotiating Process, 81 A.J.I.L. 891 (1987).Google Scholar

15. Id., at 901.

16. Regarding its decision-making power a three-fourths majority of members present and voting is required for mailers of substance and other decisions can be taken by simple majority. One of the characteristics of the Antarctic Treaty System, however, is that decision-making happens by consensus.

17. Art. 21 of the Convention.

18. Joyner, supra, note 12, at 77.Google Scholar

19. Art. 40 of the Convention.

20. Art. 41 of the Convention.

21. Art. 22(2.b) of the Convention. For the purposes of Art 22, consensus means the absence of a formal objection.

22. Art. 26 of the Convention.

23. Art. 29 of the Convention; Art. 9(b) provides: “Nothing in this Convention and no acts or activities taking place while this Convention is in force shall be interpreted as a renunciation or diminution by any Party of, or as prejudicing, any right or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or to exercise coastal state jurisdiction under international law“

24. Joyer, supra, note 12, at 79.

25. Art. 47 of the Convention.

26. Environmental impact means in this context “those changes in the natural environment that result from human activity”. See Joyner, Protection of the Antarctic Environment: Rethinking the Problems and Prospects, 19 Cornell International Law Journal 261 (1986).

27. Kindt and Parriott Ice-Covered Areas: The Competing Interests of Conservation and Resource Exploitation, 21 San Diego Law Review 959 (1984).

28. Joyner, supra, note 26, at 261.Google Scholar

29. Id., at 263,264.

30. Krill is a tiny shrimp-like shell fish that is very protein-rich and crawls in the oceans in enormous swarms. Krill is eaten by various animals such as whales and birds; it therefore forms an indispensable link in the Antarctic ecosystem. It is moreover a demanded article of food in many countries. See Peterson, supra, note 10, at 383–384.Google Scholar

31. Joyner, supra, note 26, at 261.Google Scholar

32. Kindt & Parriott, supra, note 27, at 978; see also Joyner, supra, note 12, at 86.

33. Joyner, supra, note 26, at 261.Google Scholar

34. Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, June 1, 1972, entered into force March 11, 1978, T.I.A.S. No. 8826. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, May 20, 1980, entered into force April 7, 1983, T.I.A.S. No. 10240. Arts. 9 and 10 of the Convention on Mineral Activities deal with the consistence of the Antarctic mineral activities with the Antarctic Treaty system and its components.

35. Art. 13(2) of the Convention.

36. Joyner, supra, note 12, at 82.Google Scholar

37. Art. 8 of the Convention: Response Action and Liability.

38. Kindt & Parriott, supra, note 27, at 955.

39. Art. 34 of the Convention.

40. See Joyner, supra, note 12, at 87; and supra, note 26, at 270–273.Google Scholar