Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:22:15.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A brief analysis of countries’ patterns of participation in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (1998–2011); towards leveling the playing field?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2016

Rodolfo A. Sánchez
Rodolfo A. Sánchez*
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur, Onas 450. CP: 9410. Ushuaia, Argentina ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper attempts to describe Consultative Parties’ (CPs) patterns of participation at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) during the 1998–2011 period. The results of this work show that a subset of the original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty exert the greatest political influence on ATCMs, and can therefore be seen as the main ‘propellers’ of the ATCM system. Although the performance of some of the non-original signatories is becoming increasingly consistent, the system still offers the appearance of being rather asymmetric and endogamic. In addition, a number of factors that might explain the patterns of participation observed are presented and discussed, as a contribution that may allow for achieving a more comprehensive picture of how the work of the ATCMs unfolds through time. The article concludes by presenting likely directions towards which future research on behavioural aspects of Antarctic policy making can be orientated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 52 , Issue 6 , November 2016 , pp. 686 - 697
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Allison, G.T. 1969. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. The American Political Science Review 63 (3): 689–718.Google Scholar
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. 2011. Decision 2: Revised rules of procedure for the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting 34, 2011; Revised rules of procedure for the Committee for Environmental Protection 2011; Guidelines for the submission, translation and distribution of documents for the ATCM and the CEP. Adopted 1 July 2011. Buenos Aires: ATS.Google Scholar
Bateman, T. and Crant, J.M.. 1999. Proactive behavior: meaning, impact, recommendations. Business Horizons 42 (3): 63–70 Google Scholar
Bendor, J. and Hammond, T. H..1992. Rethinking Allison's models . The American Political Science Review 86 (2): 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dastidar, P.G. 2007. National and institutional productivity and collaboration in Antarctic science: an analysis of 25 years of journal publications (1980–2004). Polar Research 26: 175–180.Google Scholar
Dudeney, J.R. and Walton, D.W.H.. 2012. Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Research 31: 11075.Google Scholar
Orheim, O., Pressand, A., Gilbert, N.. 2011. Managing the Antarctic environment: the evolving role of the Committee for Environmental Protection. In: Berkman, P.A., Lang, M.A., Walton, D.W.H. and Young, O. R. (editors). Science diplomacy: Antarctica, science, and the governance of international spaces. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.Google Scholar
Ruzicka, J. and Wheeler, N.J.. 2010. The puzzle of trusting relationships in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. International Affairs 86 (I): 69–85.Google Scholar
Sánchez, R. 2007. Antártida: Introducción a un continente remoto. Buenos Aires: Editorial Albatros.Google Scholar
Sánchez, R. and McIvor, E.. 2007. The Antarctic Committee for Environmental Protection: past, present, and future. Polar Record 43 (226): 239–246.Google Scholar
Sánchez, R. and Njaastad, B.. 2014. Future challenges in environmental management of National Antarctic Programs. In: Tin, T, Liggett, D., Maher, P. and Lamers, M. (editors). Antarctic futures: human engagement with the Antarctic environment. Dordrecht: Springer: 287–306.Google Scholar