Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:32:41.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquisition of consultative status under the Antarctic Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Serge Pannatier
Serge Pannatier
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law and Economics, University of Neuchâtel, Avenue du Premier-Mars 26, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under the regime established by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, decision-making remains exclusively with the limited number of states that are entitled to appoint representatives to participate in Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. Whereas the 12 original signatory states have a permanent right to attend these meetings, acceding states may gain consultative status only during the time they carry out substantial scientific research in the Antarctic. This paper addresses three issues: the first relates to the problems arising out of the ‘admission procedure’ adopted by the original signatory states when faced with the first application of an acceding state to become an Antarctic Treaty Consultative Party, a procedure that has been applied ever since to similar cases. The second looks at the forms of scientific research activities an acceding party ought to conduct in Antarctica in order to meet the requirements laid down in the Antarctic Treaty. The third deals more generally with the issue of limited participation in the Antarctic Treaty decision-making process, which has come under severe criticism from non-Consultative Parties and states that have not acceded to the Treaty.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 30 , Issue 173 , April 1994 , pp. 123 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Atcps. 1978. Final Report of the First Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, London, 25, 27, and 29 July 1977. London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office.Google Scholar
Atcps. 1986. Final Report of the Thirteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Brussels, 7–18 October 1985. Brussels: Kingdom of Belgium, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Co-operation in Development.Google Scholar
Atcps. 1988. Final Report of the Fourteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Rio de Janeiro, 5–16 October 1987. Rio de Janeiro: Federative Republic of Brazil, Ministry of External Relations.Google Scholar
Atcps. 1990a. Final Report of the Ninth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Paris, 9 October 1989. Paris: Republic of France.Google Scholar
Atcps. 1990b. Final Report of the Fifteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Paris, 9–20 October 1989. Paris: Republic of France.Google Scholar
Atcps. 1991. Final Report of the Tenth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Viña del Mar, 19 November 1990. Santiago: Republic of Chile.Google Scholar
Atcps. 1992. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty-Final Report of the Eleventh Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting, Madrid, 22–30 April 1991; 17–22 June 1991; 3–4 October 1991. Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores.Google Scholar
Auburn, F. M. 1979. Consultative status underthe Antarctic Treaty. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 28: 514–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auburn, F. M. 1982. Antarctic law and politics. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
Beck, P. J. 1986. The international politics of Antarctica.London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Beck, P. J. 1993. The United Nations and Antarctica, 1992: still searching for that elusive convergence of view. Polar Record 29 (171): 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, A. 1989. New developments in the Antarctic Treaty System, increased number of parties. Circumpolar Journal 4 (2–3): 100–115.Google Scholar
Bruckner, P. 1986. The Antarctic Treaty System from the perspective of a non-Consultative Party to the Antarctic Treaty. In: US Polar Research Board. Antarctic Treaty System: an assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press: 315–335.Google Scholar
Bush, W. M. 1982. Antarctica and international law: a collectionof inter-state and national documents. Volume I. New York: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
Caflisch, L. 1992. The interaction between science and politics in the field of international relations: the case of Antarctica. Polar Record 28 (165): 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conforti, B. 1987. Introduction. In: Francioni, F., and Scovazzi, T. (editors). International law for Antarctica. Milan: Giufrè: 1–3.Google Scholar
Dupuy, R.-J. 1960. Le traité sur I'Antarctique. Annuaire français de droit international 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elzinga, A., and Bohlin, I.. 1993. The politics of science in polar regions. In: Elzinga, A. (editor). Changing trends in Antarctic research. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, L. M. 1970. Emergence of Antarctica: the mythical land. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 12: 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, J. A. (editor). 1990. Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System. Seventhedition. Cambridge: Polar Publications.Google Scholar
Joyner, C. C., and Ewing, B. C. Jr 1991. Antarctica and the Latin American states: the interplay of law, geopolitics and environmental priorities. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 4 (1): 1–46.Google Scholar
Orrego, Vicuña F. 1988. Antarctic mineral exploitation: the emerging legal framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quigg, P. W. 1983. A pole apart: the emerging issue of Antarctica. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. B. 1978. International co-operation for Antarctic development: the test for the-Antarctic Treaty. Polar Record 19 (119): 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahurie, E. J. 1992. The international law of Antarctica. New Haven: New Haven Press.Google Scholar
Watts, A. 1992. International law and the Antarctic Treaty System. Cambridge: Grotius Publications.Google Scholar
Zain-Azraai, . 1987. Antarctica: the claims of ‘expertise’ versus ‘interest’. In: Triggs, G. D. (editor). The Antarctic Treaty regime: law, environment and resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar