“Logrolling” in Antarctic governance: Limits and opportunities

Abstract

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is considered a successful example of international governance as it has managed tensions over sovereignty claims, avoided militarisation and dealt with marine resources and environmental protection. Recently, China’s influence and assertiveness in many international institutions have significantly grown. What effect this shift in the international politics will have upon Antarctic governance remains to be seen. However, to further thinking on this issue we explore two current case studies that reveal pressure points within the ATS. First, in the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Australia has proposed marine protected areas off East Antarctica, to which China and several other states have objected. Second, in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, China has proposed special management arrangements for the area around the “Kunlun” station, to which Australia and several other states have objected. Negotiation theory suggests “logrolling” (i.e. trade of mutual decision-making support across issue areas) can be an effective strategy to avoid diplomatic deadlocks. We therefore consider the merits of a logrolling strategy for the above issues. We find that while a logrolling strategy in the ATS might facilitate short-term diplomatic success, it would carry significant risks, including the weakening of existing norms.

Spatial protection tools as indicators of the ‘health’ of the Antarctic Treaty system

“…China is now developing a Code of Conduct for the Dome A area as an alternative to an ASMA. However, the Dome A ASMA issue may influence China's view on MPA proposals discussed at CCAMLR: 'With the Dome A issue outstanding, it will be more difficult for these countries to gain China's support' (Liu, 2019a(Liu, , 2019b; see also McGee et al, 2020). Furthermore, whether the Code of Conduct would apply to all activities in the area (as favoured by China) or only to Chinese activities (as preferred by other Parties) is still under discussion.…”

“…Despite conceptual agreement among CCAMLR Members on the importance of developing a network of MPAs (in parallel with global marine protection processes), discussions have been often inconclusive and highly polarised between advocates and antagonists of MPAs. The Russian Federation and China have been the main objectors to MPAs (e.g., Brooks et al, 2020; McGee et al, 2020; Petrov & Katsakina, 2019; Russian Fisheries Agency, 2021; Scott, 2021; Tang et al, 2020). Objections have been raised about, among other matters, MPA size, location, duration, overlap with current or potential future fishing areas and resulting impact on fisheries now and in the future, and implementation of MPA research and monitoring plans (Brooks, 2013).…”

“…The primary proposition of this paper is that spatial protection tools embody key objectives outlined in the Antarctic Treaty and related instruments as they relate to specific areas. Since Antarctic Treaty bodies make decisions by unanimous consensus (e.g., Goldsworthy, 2022; McGee et al, 2020; Turner et al, 2008), expanding the series of terrestrial and marine protected areas reaffirms the balance of interests that resulted in the adoption of the Antarctic Treaty and related instruments.…”

“…Over the years, these bodies have agreed on various categories of spatial protection tools applicable to terrestrial and marine areas; have formally adopted a number of protected areas, beginning in the early 1960s; and have established frameworks to expand protected area systems (e.g., Goldsworthy & Hemmings, 2008; Roura et al, 2018). However, some issues of conflict have emerged in discussions about spatial protection in the Antarctic mainland (e.g., McGee et al, 2020; O'Reilly, 2011), the Southern Ocean (e.g., Brooks et al, 2020; Cordonnery et al, 2015; Goldsworthy, 2022; Liu & Brooks, 2018; Tang et al, 2020), and in their interface (Roura et al, 2018; Scott, 2021). What do ongoing discussions about Antarctic spatial protection tools tell us about the ‘health’ or overall condition of the Antarctic Treaty system 60 years after its entry into force?…”

Introducing the Seasonal Closure into the CCAMLR Fishery Management Framework: Problems, Methods, and Prospects

“…The critical point is the MPAs regime created by the Commission. In 2002, CCAMLR committed to creating a network of MPAs following recommendations from the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development [56]. So far, there are two MPAs in the Southern Ocean established by the Commission, respectively, the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA (SOIMPA) and the Ross Sea Region MPA (RSRMPA).…”