Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Acceding States (Non Consultative Parties)
Consultative Parties
Original Signatories {Consultative Parties}
Figure 10.6
Growth in number of Antarctic Treaty Parties, showing the rapid increase in
Consultative Parties in the 1980s associated with the negotiations on the minerals regime.
present with regards to the deep-sea bed, in the earlier negotiations on the Law of the
Sea. Some of the participants from these also became involved in the mineral
discussions, so there may have been a carry-over of such viewpoints.
The ATCPs decided they would not take part in any UN voting on Antarctica, as they
considered that Antarctica did not need UN involvement. They maintained that the ATS
and the ATCMs constituted a proven, well-functioning management of the region, to
which any member of the UN could join. Over the years there has been no progress on this
issue at the UN, and the interest there has gradually died down, in part because Malaysia
who originally headed the campaign instead moved towards acceding to the Treaty.
The joy among the negotiators at having successfully completed the
Convention did not last long. In 1989 Australia and France announced that they
would not ratify it, rendering it, in reality, dead. There was probably a mixture
of reasons for this decision. The one presented in public was a concern for the
Antarctic environment, a view promoted by Greenpeace in a global campaign,
and by the Cousteau Foundation in France.
For the
first time in the history of the Treaty a situation had arisen where consensus
had broken on a fundamental issue, and this presented a real possibility that the
Treaty would fall apart. This was only 2 years before 1991, and as can be seen from
article XII.2 any consultative party could after 30 years, i.e. in 1991, ask for a
conference to discuss the Treaty, and if it was not satis
ed with the results it could
Search WWH ::
Custom Search