The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has governed the Antarctic for the last six decades ensuring it to be a place of peace and scientific cooperation. Like any institution, the ATS exists in order to solve collective action problems through coordination and the creation of norms. But how do we know if a particular institution is the right one to solve a specific problem or address issues regarding the governance of a region? And when is it time to replace or reform such an institution? To answer these questions, we need an account of institutional legitimacy. An assessment of the legitimacy of the ATS is necessary in order to determine whether it is worthy of being empowered through support, or if it is time to reform some aspects of it. Building on the account of legitimacy of global governance institutions proposed by Buchanan and Keohane, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS and argues that it is time to reform some components of it. Specifically, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS based on the following criteria: minimal moral acceptability; comparative benefit; institutional integrity; and accountability. The paper highlights the ATS' shortcomings based on these criteria and suggests reforms that will strengthen the legitimacy of the ATS

As the short to medium-term social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic dominate world issues, longer-term environmental and geopolitical concerns remain of great concern. However, the appetite for tackling complex transdisciplinary anthropogenic change processes may be receding rather than accelerating. In this essay, we propose that Antarctica, the continent of peace and science, a place that assumes a role as the global imaginary Other, where short- and long-term horizons co-exist, is a site where signs of global regeneration in the Anthropocene should be clear. To provoke discussion, we imagine two scenarios set in the five Gateway Cities of Antarctica to 2050. In the ‘Gatekeepers’ scenario, there is a fragmented global order with minimal unregulated behaviour based on narrowly defined national interests; in the ‘Gateways’ scenario, values-based partnerships generate novel institutional arrangements. By contrasting these polar opposites as a performative act, we highlight the need for future-making at the interface between science and policy.

The COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic-related measures have impacted the lives and work-related activities of Antarctic researchers. To explore these impacts, we designed, piloted and disseminated an online survey in English, Russian, Spanish and Chinese in late 2020 and early 2021. The survey explored how the pandemic affected the productivity of Antarctic researchers, their career prospects and their mental wellbeing. Findings exposed patterns of inequities. For instance, of the 406 unique responses to the survey, women appeared to have been affected more adversely than men, especially in relation to mental health, and early-career researchers were disadvantaged more than their mid- or late-career colleagues. Overall, a third of the research participants reported at least one major negative impact from the pandemic on their mental health. Approximately half of the participants also mentioned that the COVID-19 pandemic had some positive effects, especially in terms of the advantages that working from home brought and opportunities to attend events, network or benefit from training workshops online. We conclude with a series of recommendations for science administrators and policymakers to mitigate the most serious adverse impacts of the pandemic on Antarctic research communities, with implications for other contexts where scientific activities are conducted under extreme circumstances.

The changing situation in the Arctic due to global warming has prompted media coverage of a supposed “scramble for the Arctic,” an “Arctic boom,” or an “Arctic Bonanza.” Some even go further, deploying the rhetoric of a “New Cold War,” predicting an inevitable clash between the United States and Russia over interests in the region. The press coverage in both countries over the past decade reflects this new sensationalism. The academic literature unequivocally confirms that the press exerts substantial influence on governmental policy makers, and vice versa. However, while scholars agree that international organizations (IOs) are essential to shaping policies, the existing literature lacks research on media’s relationship with IOs, which often struggle to obtain the coverage and publicity they deserve. The Arctic Council has provided an effective platform for constructive dialogue and decision making involving the USA and Russia. Accordingly, despite disagreements in other regions of the world, the two global powers have managed to cooperate in the Arctic – notwithstanding recent media coverage painting a different and incomplete picture. This project surveys the media coverage of the Arctic over the past decade in Russia and the USA and its correlation with the Arctic Council’s activities. The analysis draws upon two prominent news organizations in Russia (Kommersant and Izvestiya) and two in the USA (the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal), as well as the Arctic Council’s press releases from June 2006 to June 2017. The paper finds that there is a clear disconnect between media coverage of the region and the Arctic Council’s activities. It recommends that the media pay more attention to the organization, particularly since it is the only prominent platform for international cooperation in the Arctic.

The review article discusses the possibilities of using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in oncology. The technical principles and features of HIFU ablation, a brief history of the development of HIFU therapy, the principles of HIFU therapy, the physical basis of the HIFU ablation method, and the mechanisms of antitumor action of HIFU therapy are presented. The results and benefits of HIFU therapy for various malignant and benign tumors are discussed.