Turned 60, is the Antarctic treaty system in good health?

Abstract

If it ain't broke, don't fix it', is a common response of Antarctic policy-makers when one starts inquiring into specific aspects of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and suggesting whether some of them might be rethought. 1 The qualified answer that follows is something like this: 'This is an international treaty that started with only 12 signatories in 1959 and has now 54 in total, including all the major global powers, economic and political, and representing the majority of humanity. Since its inception, the Antarctic Treaty (AT) has preserved a whole continent demilitarised and denuclearised, exclusively for peaceful scientific cooperation and environmental protection. It cannot get better than this in international politics. In fact, the treaty is a brilliant piece of diplomacy and an enduring example of what countries can achieve when they decide to cooperate with each other, rather than fight against each other. So, what is the point of questioning it?' (Examples of celebratory statements regarding the ATS are found in Orrego Vicuña, 1986;Watts, 1986;and Triggs, 2011).This answer is understandable. The role of national delegates during the annual AT Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) and other fora-like the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)-is to tread carefully and seek compromise, which more often than not means leaving things as they are. This does not mean that there has been no evolution in the system throughout the years, but this evolution has tended to happen because of external pressure rather than internal initiative. The clearest example of this was the 'Question of Antarctica', placed among the topics for discussion in the United Nations General Assembly from 1983 to 2005. By challenging the exclusion of the developing world in Antarctic governance, this movement-kickstarted by Malaysia-effectively resulted in a growing membership within the Antarctic Treaty and a more open and transparent system (Beck, 2006).

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

“…This aligns with growing concern more generally about the condition of the ATS ( 12 – 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 ).…”

“…Broad geopolitical factors relating to Antarctica, which, while already of concern ( 12 , 14 ), have accelerated during and since the pandemic. With Russia and Ukraine, both ATCPs, the invasion of Ukraine has affected activities in the Antarctic.…”

“…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).…”

“…1) chronic slowness to respond and a lack of urgency with regard to how existing regulations are implemented ( 14 );…”