Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Finally, it is worth noting that non-state organizations are accommodated within the polit-
ical architecture of the ATS. This was not always so. In 1959, twelve states and their rep-
resentatives were at the negotiating table in Washington, DC. At the latest Consultative
Meeting, held in Buenos Aires in June-July 2011, delegations were mingling with envir-
onmental groups, journalists, multi-national corporations, tour operators, academics, and
policy-orientated consultants, and professional groupings such as the Council of Managers
of National Antarctic Programs (CONAP). It is not uncommon for representatives from
environmental movements to accompany national delegations. Comp bi-focal approach"
aid="Cared to the first Consultative Meeting held in Australia in 1961, the business of the
ATS is a lot more accessible to non-consultative parties, even if there is still much busi-
ness conducted away from the direct gaze of interested parties. The Antarctic Secretariat,
moreover, provides a great deal more information about the business conducted at the an-
nual meetings, alongside other activities such as the Committee on Environmental Protec-
tion, which is charged with implementing and reviewing the Protocol on Environmental
Protection.
The enduring treaty
As a governance regime, the Antarctic Treaty is frequently been trumpeted as a success
story. Why has it endured? I think there are three fundamental reasons, apart from all the
original parties getting something tangible from the 1959 negotiations. First, the twelve
parties produced an attractive creation myth: they used science and scientists to portray
themselves as political visionaries seeking to introduce peace and harmony to a remote con-
tinent. While the experiences of the IGY and science in general were important, this was an
emollient for a treaty created out of claims and counter-claims. The treaty could not settle
the disputed ownership issue because it was not solvable. But to the excluded wider world,
it was important to 'sell' the Antarctic Treaty as progressive and attuned to the principles
embodied in the United Nations Charter.
Second, the treaty endured because there were provisions (and opportunities taken) to not
only accommodate new members but also to deal with issues such as conservation, en-
vironmental protection, and living resource exploitation as they arose. The treaty, with its
associated conventions and protocols, proved flexible. Even at moments of greatest polit-
ical tension, such as over the prospect of potential mineral exploitation in the 1980s, the
Antarctic Treaty parties proved sufficiently adept at neutralizing opposition as voiced in
the United Nations General Assembly. They did so by inviting some of the most powerful
critics such as India and China to join the treaty and by signing a Protocol on Environment-
Search WWH ::




Custom Search