The workings of the Antarctic Treaty System have tended to seize up around environmental issues in recent years.
But the causes of disagreements between the Consultative Parties – which cannot easily reach consensus – may lie elsewhere, outside the Treaty’s jurisdiction, as analyzed by Anaïs Rémont, a PhD student in geopolitics and international law at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources Studies, in Polar Journal AG.
Although the question of governance of the white continent by the United Nations has been out of the question for many years, it has to be said that when you can’t get in through the door, you have to try through the window. The preliminary version of the final report adopted at the 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) was published on September 12. It mentions the unprecedented situation between Russia and Ukraine – which is hardly improving – and uses it in part to legitimize a (new) obstacle to Belarus obtaining Consultative Party status.
Back in 2023, Ukraine pointed out that “the Antarctic Treaty exists within the context of the United Nations system of treaties and rules”. In the latest report from the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, the reference to “the current political circumstances” underlines the difficulty of maintaining the neutral position claimed by the Antarctic Treaty System with regard to what is happening on the international scene. Although the Antarctic Treaty System claims to be open and global, the way it operates is more akin to a particularly closed and complex regional system, even though its environment is affected by external threats.
While Belarus has declared its intention to join the limited circle of Consultative Parties in 2019, consensus is still lacking five years later. This disagreement, and Ukraine’s reminder in 2023, puts the question back at the heart of the debate: what is the position of the Antarctic Treaty System concerning the United Nations? A debate on which the current report could well shed new light, with the potential to set a delicate legal precedent.
Mentioned in the Preamble, the United Nations Charter is a ‘secondary’ element. Indeed, the Treaty, “reserving the Antarctic solely for peaceful activities and maintaining international harmony in this region, will serve the intentions and principles” defended by the said Charter. On the other hand, Article X of the Treaty calls on “each Contracting Party to take appropriate measures, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to prevent any person from undertaking any activity in the Antarctic contrary to the principles or intentions of this Treaty”. The issue at stake here would therefore be to move from an “Antarctic-centric” vision to a more global consideration of the extent of the open conflict between Russia and Ukraine – both Consultative Parties – and its impact on Ukrainian research, for example.
While it is true that the System succeeded in overcoming the various crises of legitimacy posed by the claims of emerging countries in the 1980s, the use of the political dimension within the Antarctic Treaty would be tantamount to opening up an important (and perhaps profitable?) legal breach towards governance assured under the aegis of the United Nations. The implementation of an action plan for the Southern Ocean with the joint support of numerous organizations such as SCAR, IAATO and WWF, the development of the Antarctica InSync project as part of the United Nations Decade of Oceanographic Sciences under the “patronage” of UNESCO, and the occasional invitation to the United Nations Environment Programme and/or observers from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to attend the RCTAs, all bear witness to a clear “outward” development of the Antarctic Treaty System.
Finally, the questions that might arise are. Is it fair to maintain a form of legal exceptionalism with regard to Antarctica? Or would the obvious imbalance between Consultative and Non-Consultative Parties not call for an evolution of the System towards the establishment of safeguards for greater equity?
Anaïs Rémont, a doctoral student in geopolitics and international law, explores the interface between science and law in the Antarctic Treaty System through two main themes: climate change and ocean governance. Her research is affiliated with the University of Wollongong and the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources.
More on the subject
