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

Abstract

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? The Antarctic Treaty (1959, in force 1961) resulted from the alignment of common international interests (e.g., maintenance of peace, freedom of scientific investigation) with the national interests of original signatory states (e.g., ‘freezing’ of diverging positions on territorial claims). Later instruments adopted by Antarctic Treaty states replicated this scheme and allowed agreement on, among other issues, environmental protection, and marine ecosystem conservation. This paper draws on an examination of the series of spatial protection tools in force established by the main Antarctic Treaty system bodies, and observations conducted in annual decision‐making meetings. Issues of conflict emerge as the size, complexity, and conservation ambitions of spatial protection tools increase, resulting in a weakening of the proposals and lack of consensus. This paper argues that establishing spatial protection tools reflects an intent by Antarctic Treaty states to engage with the Antarctic Treaty system for the longer term; however, the establishment trajectory of spatial protection tools is sensitive to resource interests and broader Antarctic geopolitics. Ongoing difficulties of Antarctic Treaty fora to reach consensus on the spatial protection tools they agreed to establish – and on other important issues – bring into question the current effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty system. The path to recovery requires Antarctic Treaty states to negotiate in good faith with a view to finding consensus, while upholding the environmental objectives of Antarctic Treaty system instruments.

How the COVID-19 pandemic signaled the demise of Antarctic exceptionalism

“…This required looking at broader geopolitical shifts, especially within the most influential Treaty Parties, and increasing protectionism within the Antarctic spheres of activity. This aligns with growing concern more generally about the condition of the ATS (12)(13)(14). For example, Mancilla and Jabour conclude with a prognosis that, "if not severely ill, the [Antarctic Treaty] system's chronic ailments-particularly laggardness-must be addressed if it is to respond satisfactorily to rapid social, political, environmental and economic changes on a global scale" (14).…”