Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:29:30.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thawing the ice: a contemporary solution to Antarctic sovereignty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2017

Wygene Chong
Wygene Chong*
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia Law School, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has provided a peaceful framework for governing the continent over many decades, in spite of seven extant territorial claims. However, its method of freezing these claims has been criticised for being short-sighted and ineffective in providing a long-term solution. This paper argues to the contrary. It undertakes a brisk analysis of different categories of alternatives: global commons, absolute sovereignty, restricted sovereignty and shared sovereignty. After dismissing each category for various reasons, it promotes the reform of the existing ATS, in which a long-term vision and modified chairmanship structure provide stronger leadership and more effective implementation. Essentially, it holds that the primary reason there is criticism of the system is because it is not functioning as well as it might be. The paper not only contends that a developed ATS is an achievable aim, but that it could eventually develop into a restricted, shared sovereignty governance framework. That form of governance, which would emerge over time, could be a more durable solution that resolves the competing territorial claims. In this way, the paper charts a potential pathway for the future of Antarctic governance. This path begins, however, with a reformed ATS.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , July 2017 , pp. 436 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Ahmad, H. B. (2010). Malaysia and the Southern Ocean: revisiting the question of Antarctica. Ocean Development and International Law, 41, 186–195.Google Scholar
Bastmeijer, K. & Tin, T. (2015). Antarctica – a wilderness continent for science: the ‘public's dream’ as a mission impossible? Yearbook of Polar Law, 6, 559–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becks, P. (2006). The United Nations and Antarctica, 2055: the end of the ‘Question of Antarctica’? Polar Record, 42, 217–222.Google Scholar
Bloom, E. (2016). The Arctic Council produces a new Arctic science cooperation agreement. Arctic Yearbook, 222–224.Google Scholar
Boczek, B. A. (1983). The protection of the Antarctic ecosystem: a study in international environmental law. Ocean Development and International Law Journal, 13, 347–425.Google Scholar
Bradford, A. & Ben-Shahar, O. (2012). Efficient enforcement in international law. Chicago Journal of International Law, 12, 375–431.Google Scholar
Bray, D. (2016). The geopolitics of Antarctic governance: sovereignty and strategic denial in Australia's Antarctic policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70, 256–274.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, R. (2010). The political origins of the Antarctic treaty. Polar Record, 46, 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia. (2016). Australian Antarctic strategy and 20 year action plan. Canberra: Australian Government. Google Scholar
Davis, B. (1992). Antarctica as a global protected area: perceptions and reality. Australian Geographer, 23, 39–43.Google Scholar
Det Kongelige Justis-og Beredskapsdepartement [The Royal Ministry of Justice and Security]. (2016). Meld. St. 32. Svalbard. Oslo: Norwegian Government.Google Scholar
Det Kongelige Utenriksdepartement [The Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs]. (2015). Meld. St. 32. Norske interesser og politikk i Antarktis [Norwegian interests and policy in Antarctica]. Oslo: Norwegian Government.Google Scholar
Dodds, K. (2010). The 1959 Antarctic treaty: reflecting on the 50th anniversary of a landmark agreement. Polar Research, 29, 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, K. (2011). Sovereignty watch: claimant states, resources and territory in contemporary Antarctica. Polar Record, 47, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, K. (2017). ‘Awkward Antarctic nationalism’: bodies, ice cores and gateways in and beyond Australian Antarctic Territory/East Antarctica. Polar Record, 53, 16–30.Google Scholar
Doomen, J. (2011). The meaning of ‘international law’. The Original Law Review, 7, 59–71.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. (2016). The fragile global commons in a world in transition. SAIS Review, 36, 17–28.Google Scholar
Gullett, W. & Schofield, C. (2007). Pushing the limits of the law of the sea convention: Australian and French cooperative surveillance and enforcement in the Southern Ocean. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 22, 545–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurney, I. (2016). Cold fleet: the Southern Ocean, Antarctica and the ADF (Commander's Paper). Weston ACT: Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies, Australian Defence College.Google Scholar
Haward, M. & Cooper, N. (2014). Australian interests, bifocalism, bipartisanship, and the Antarctic Treaty System. Polar Record, 50, 60–71.Google Scholar
Haward, M. (2017). Contemporary challenges to the Antarctic Treaty and Antarctic Treaty System: Australian interests, interplay and the evolution of a regime complex. Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs, 9, 21–24.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A. (2008). Beyond claims: towards a non-territorial Antarctic security prism for Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, 6, 77–91.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A. (2009). From the new geopolitics of resources to nanotechnology: emerging challenges of globalism in Antarctica. Yearbook of Polar Law, 1, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmings, A., Chaturvedi, S., Leane, E., Liggett, D. & Salazar, J. F. (2015). Nationalism in today's Antarctica. Yearbook of Polar Law, 7, 531–555.Google Scholar
Her Majesty's Government. (2014). UK science in Antarctica 2014–2020. London: UK Government.Google Scholar
Hinkley, D. M. (1990). Protecting American interests in Antarctic: the territorial claims dilemma. Naval Law Review, 39, 43–65.Google Scholar
Howkins, A. (2008). Defending the polar empire: opposition to India's proposal to raise the ‘Antarctic question’ at the United Nations in 1956. Polar Record, 44, 35–44.Google Scholar
Ismail, Z., Makmor, M., Hashim, R., Shah, R. M., Hanifah, N. A. & Ahmad, S. (2012). The role of Malaysia under the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid Protocol (Conference Paper). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research, 3–4 December 2012.Google Scholar
Jabour, J. & Weber, M. (2008). Is it time to cut the Gordian knot of polar sovereignty? Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 17, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabour, J. (2012). The Antarctic Treaty System: what's on the horizon? Yearbook of Polar Law, 4, 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessup, P. C. & Taubenfeld, H. J. (1959). Controls for Outer Space and the Antarctic analogy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Joyner, C. (1998). Governing the frozen commons: the Antarctic regime and environmental protection. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Kawaley, I. (1999). The implications of exclusive economic zone management and regional cooperation between South Pacific Small Midocean Island Commonwealth Territories. Ocean Development and International Law, 30, 333– 377.Google Scholar
Kennicutt, M., Chown, S., Cassano, J., Liggett, D., Peck, L., Massom, R., . . . Sutherland, W. (2015). A roadmap for Antarctic and Southern Ocean science for the next two decades and beyond. Antarctic Science, 27, 3–18.Google Scholar
Koivurova, T. & Holiencin, F. (2017). Demilitarisation and neutralisation of Svalbard: how has the Svalbard regime been able to meet the changing security realities during almost 100 years of existence? Polar Record, 53, 131–142.Google Scholar
Larschan, B. & Brennan, B. (1983). The common heritage of mankind principle in international law. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 21, 305–337.Google Scholar
Lefeber, R. (1990). The exercise of jurisdiction in the Antarctic region and the changing structure of international law. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 21, 81–137.Google Scholar
Lindley, J. & Techera, E. (2017). Overcoming complexity in illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing to achieve effective regulatory pluralism. Marine Policy, 81, 71–79.Google Scholar
Marsden, S. (2016). From the high north to the roof of the world: Arctic precedents for third pole governance. Yearbook of Polar Law, 8, 56–75.Google Scholar
McCreath, M. (2015). Protecting the Antarctic marine environment from the impacts of shipping (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
McGee, J. & Smith, D. (2017). Framing Australian Antarctic policy: the 20-year Antarctic plan and beyond. Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs, 9, 25–41.Google Scholar
Mickleburgh, E. (1988). Beyond the frozen sea: visions of Antarctica. The Bodley Head. Cited in Davis, B. (1992). Antarctica as a global protected area: perceptions and reality. Australian Geographer, 23, 39–43.Google Scholar
New Zealand Government. (2010). New Zealand Antarctic and Southern Ocean science directions and priorities 2010–2020. Wellington: NZ Government.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D. (1986). Antarctica under threat: an examination of the Antarctic Treaty System and its response to the challenges of the 1980s (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D. (1996). The polar regions and the development of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D. (2010). Sovereignty and the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Record, 46, 17–20.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D. (2013). The polar regions and the development of international law: contemporary reflections and twenty-first century challenges. Yearbook of Polar Law, 5, 233–251.Google Scholar
Saul, B. & Stephens, T. (Eds.). (2015a). Antarctica in international law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Saul, B. & Stephens, T. (2015b). Responsive Antarctic law-making in the Asian century. Yearbook of Polar Law, 7, 55–82.Google Scholar
Schrijver, N. (2016). Managing the global commons: common good or common sink? Third World Quarterly, 37, 1252–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, S. (2011). Ingenious or innocuous? Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty as imperialism. The Polar Journal, 1, 51–62.Google Scholar
Scott, S. (2013). The evolving Antarctic Treaty System: implications of accommodating developments in the law of the sea. In Molenaar, E., Rothwell, D. & Elferink, A. (Eds.). (2013). Law of the sea and the polar regions: interactions between global and regional regimes. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Shibata, A. & Raita, M. (2016). An agreement on enhancing international scientific cooperation: only for the eight Arctic states and their scientists? Yearbook of Polar Law, 8, 129–162.Google Scholar
Tenebaum, E. (1990). A world park in Antarctica: the common heritage of mankind. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 10, 109–136.Google Scholar
Triggs, G. (1986). International law and Australian sovereignty in Antarctica. Sydney: Legal Books.Google Scholar
Ulfstein, G. (1995). The Svalbard Treaty: from Terra Nullius to Norwegian sovereignty. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Vasiliev, A. (2013). The agreement on cooperation on aeronautical and maritime search and rescue in the arctic – a new chapter in polar law. In Loukacheva, N. (Ed.). (2013). Polar law textbook II. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
Welch, W. (1992). The Antarctic treaty system: is it adequate to regulate or eliminate the environmental exploitation of the globe's last wilderness? Houston International Law Journal, 14, 597–657.Google Scholar