Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T03:09:33.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International law, climate change and the Antarctic Treaty System: re-contemplating governance questions apropos of the mounting challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2023

Zia Madani Open the ORCID record for Zia Madani [Opens in a new window]  and
Akiho Shibata Open the ORCID record for Akiho Shibata [Opens in a new window]
Zia Madani*
Affiliation:
Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC), Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
Akiho Shibata
Affiliation:
Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC), Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
*
madani.zia@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

More than 60 years since it entered into force in 1961, the Antarctic Treaty is experiencing significant challenges. These challenges also affect its associated instruments known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). These are mostly external dynamics that are increasingly challenging the ATS from outside of the Antarctic region. They encompass a spectrum of issues relating to global legal regimes and to what extent they are applicable in the Antarctic context. Climate change appears to be the most significant of these challenges, as the tangible planetary impacts of global warming and the perception of its urgency and seriousness by states have prompted additional challenges to the ATS. The physical changes that continue to be scientifically unveiled in the Antarctic are manifesting severe impacts on a planetary scale, and this fact has underscored the need for broader and more rapid international engagement within the Antarctic governance discourse. Nevertheless, the existing decision-making mechanisms compounded by the adversarial atmosphere within the ATS due to external factors have become challenges of themselves. Such challenges call for the re-contemplation and reassessment of the legal regime of the Antarctic in general, and the ATS in particular, to find ways forward for an otherwise historically effective international legal system. This paper utilizes both scientific and legal lenses to underscore the urgent need to achieve better communication between the ATS generally, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings specifically and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regimes and to overcome the multiple barriers that stand in the way of achieving that objective.

Keywords

Antarctic legal regimeAntarctic Treaty System (ATS)climate changegovernanceinternational lawpolar law
Type
Social Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2023 , pp. 374 - 389
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antarctic Science Ltd

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ASOC. 2015. Information Paper prepared by ASOC delegates: the Antarctic Treaty System, Climate Change and Strengthened Scientific Interface with Relevant Bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). IP114 (5 May 2015).Google Scholar
ATCM. 1963. Report of the Third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, 13 June 1963, retrieved from https://documents.ats.aq/ATCM3/fr/ATCM3_fr001_e.pdf.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2013. Final Report of the Thirty-sixth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Brussels, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 20–29 May 2013.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2015a. Resolution 6: the Role of Antarctica in global climate processes. 38 ATCM Report.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2015b. Rules of Procedure of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting and the Committee for Environmental Protection. Updated: June 2015, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2017. Final Report of the Fortieth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Beijing, China, 22 May–1 June 2017. Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2019. Final Report of the Forty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Prague, Czech Republic, 1–11 July 2019. Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2022a. Final Report of the Forty-fourth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Forty-fourth Antarctic Treaty Consultative, Berlin, Germany, 23 May 2022–2 June 2022. Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2022b. Letters on Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment: A Decadal Synopsis and Recommendations for Action report, Final Report of the 44th ATCM, adopted 2 June 2022.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2023. Resolution, Helsinki Declaration on Climate Change and the Antarctic, 45 ATCM Report (Preliminary Version).Google Scholar
ATCM-CEP. 2015. Resolution 4, Committee for Environmental Protection Climate Change Response Work Programme. 38 ATCM Report.Google Scholar
ATCM-CEP. 2019. Report of the Twenty-second Meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP XXII) Prague, Czech Republic, July 1–5, 2019, in Final Report of the Forty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty.Google Scholar
ATME. 2009. Co-Chairs' Report from Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Implications of Climate Change for Antarctic Management and Governance.Google Scholar
Australia. 2012. Working Paper prepared by Australian delegate: ATCM interests in international climate change discussions - options for enhanced engagement. WP032 (27 April 2012).Google Scholar
Barrett, J.M. 2020. The Antarctic Treaty System. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 40–63.Google Scholar
Bastmeijer, K., Shibata, A., Steinhage, I., Ferrada, L.V. & Bloom, E. 2023. Regulating Antarctic tourism: the challenge of consensus-based decision-making. American Journal of International Law, 10.1017/ajil.2023.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, P.A. 2020. Polar science diplomacy. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 105–123.Google Scholar
Bindoff, N.L., Cheung, W.W.L., Kairo, J.G., et al. 2019. Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities. In Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-Delmotte, V. et al., eds, IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. Geneva: IPCC, ch. 5.Google Scholar
Bloom, E.T. 2022. Meeting Antarctica's diplomatic challenges: joint approaches for Australia and the United States. Special Report, The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).Google Scholar
Böning, C., Dispert, A., Visbeck, M. et al. 2008. The response of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to recent climate change. Nature Geosci 1, 864–869. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, C.M., Bloom, E., Kavanagh, A., Nocito, E.S., Watters, G.M. & Weller, J. 2021. The Ross Sea, Antarctica: a highly protected MPA in international waters. Marine Policy, 134, 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104795.10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, R. 2010. The political origins of the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Record, 46, 10.1017/S0032247409990234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capurro, A., Colleoni, F., Downey, R., Pakhomov, E., Roura, R. & Christianson, A. 2021. Polar Perspectives No. 5, Climate Change and Southern Ocean Resilience. Report from an Interdisciplinary Scientific Workshop, Polar Institute, Wilson Center, 30 March 2021.Google Scholar
CCAMLR. 2006. Report of the CAMLR Commission, CCAMLR-XXV, 23 October–3 November 2006, Hobart, Australia, paragraph 17.3. Retrieved from https://www.ccamlr.org/en/system/files/e-cc-xxv.pdf.Google Scholar
Chown, S.L., Leihy, R.I., Naish, T.R., Brooks, C.M., Convey, P., Henley, B.J., et al., eds. 2022. Antarctic climate change and the environment: a decadal synopsis and recommendations for action. Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, 106 pp. Retrieved from https://www.scar.org/policy/acce-updates/.Google Scholar
Clem, K., Massom, R., Stammerjohn, S. & Reid, P. 2022. Cryosphere: Antarctic Sea Ice #3: Trends and Future Projections. Antarctic Environments Portal, 10.48361/4d9d-1g64.Google Scholar
Convey, P., Bindschadler, R., Di Prisco, G., Fahrbach, E., Gutt, J., Hodgson, D., et al. 2009. Antarctic climate change and the environment. Antarctic Science, 21, 10.1017/S0954102009990642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, K. & Hemmings, A.D. 2013. Britain and the British Antarctic Territory in the wider geopolitics of the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean. International Affairs, 89, 1429–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francioni, F. 1992. International environmental law for Antarctica. Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore.Google Scholar
French, D. 2012. Regime integrity qua Antarctic security: embedding global principles and universal values within the Antarctic Treaty System. In Hemmings, A.D., Rothwell, D.R. & Scott, K., eds, Antarctic security in the twenty-first century: legal and policy perspectives. London: Routledge, 51–69.Google Scholar
Haward, M. 2020. Southern Ocean fisheries. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 181–199.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A.D. 2014. Re-justifying the Antarctic Treaty System for the 21st century: rights, expectations and global equity. In Powell, R. & Dodds, K., eds, Polar geopolitics: knowledges, resources and legal regimes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1–12.Google Scholar
Hughes, K.A., Constable, A., Frenot, Y., López-Martínez, J., McIvor, E., Njåstad, B., et al. 2018. Antarctic environmental protection: strengthening the links between science and governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 83, 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IMO. 1948. Convention on the International Maritime Organization. Geneva, 6 March 1948.Google Scholar
IPCC. 2022. Summary for policymakers [Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Reisinger, A., Slade, R., Fradera, R., Pathak, M., et al., eds]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10.1017/9781009157926.001.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R.L. & Joblin, S. 2020. Non-living resources and the poles. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 250–271.Google Scholar
Joyner, C.C. 1986. Protection of the Antarctic environment: rethinking the problems and prospects. Cornell International Law Journal, 19, 259–273.Google Scholar
Lalonde, S. 2020. Marine protected are networks at the poles. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 346–370.Google Scholar
Larsen, J.N., Anisimov, O.A., Constable, A., et al. 2014. Polar regions. In Field, C.B., et al., eds, Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, Working Group II contribution to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (WGII AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lascelles, B., Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Cuttelod, A., Eckert, S., Glowka, , et al. 2014. Migratory marine species: their status, threats and conservation management needs, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24, 10.1002/aqc.2512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madani, Z. 2015. Possible challenges on the path towards Iranian active scientific research presence in the Antarctic: an international legal approach. Yearbook of Polar Law, 7, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madani, Z. & Jabour, J. 2018. Developing an Iranian Antarctic science roadmap: a legal and policy outlook. Yearbook of Polar Law, 10, 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, E.J., Oude Elferink, A.G. & Rothwell, D.R., eds. 2013. The law of the sea and the polar regions: interactions between global and regional regimes. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naish, T. 2017. What does the United Nations Paris Climate Agreement mean for Antarctica: implications for New Zealand's future research priorities. Antarctic, 35, 46–51.Google Scholar
Press, A.J., Hodgson-Johnston, I. & Constable, A.J. 2019. The principles of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources: why its commission is not a regional fisheries management organisation. In Liu, N., Brooks, C.M. & Qin, T., eds, Governing marine living resources in the polar regions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 9–29.Google Scholar
Rayfuse, R. 2020. Climate change and the poles. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 413–433.Google Scholar
Rignot, E., Moginot, J., Scheuchl, B., & Morlighem, M. 2019. Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 1095–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothwell, D. 2021. The Antarctic Treaty at sixty years: past, present and future. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D.R. & Hemmings, A.D. 2020. Evolution of a polar law. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 455–474.Google Scholar
SCAR. 2014. Information Paper prepared by SCAR delegates: SCAR engagement with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). IP039 (27 March 2014).Google Scholar
SCAR, Monaco & Belgium. 2017. Antarctica and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 to 2020. Working Paper submitted by SCAR, Monaco and Belgium.Google Scholar
Scott, S.V. 2013. The evolving Antarctic Treaty System: implications of accommodating developments in the law of the sea. In Molenaar, E.J., Oude Elferink, A.G. & Rothwell, D.R., eds, The law of the sea and the polar regions: interactions between global and regional regimes. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 17–34.10.1163/9789004255210_003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibata, A. 2015. Japan and 100 years of Antarctic legal order: any lessons for the Arctic? The Yearbook of Polar Law, 7, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibata, A. 2021. Good faith. In Rajamani, L. & Peel, J., eds, Oxford handbook of international environmental law, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerhayes, C., Zalasiewicz, J., Vidas, D. & Williams, M. 2020. Polar regions in the Anthropocene. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 18–39.Google Scholar
Turner, J., Bindschadler, R.A., Convey, P., Di Prisco, G., Fahrbach, E., Gutt, J., et al. 2009. Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment, Cambridge: SCAR. 526 pp. ISBN 978 0 948277 22 1. Retrieved from https://www.scar.org/library/scar-publications/occasional-publications/3508-antarctic-climate-change-and-the-environment-1/file/.Google Scholar
UNCLOS. 1982. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 10 December 1982.Google Scholar
UNGA. 2016. First Global Integrated Marine Assessment (First World Ocean Assessment), Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including Socioeconomic Aspects. UNGA, Resolution 57/141.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2002. United Nations, World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 26 August–4 September 2002. A/CONF.199/L.7.Google Scholar
United Nations, ed. 2017. Southern Ocean. In The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment: World Ocean Assessment I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10.1017/9781108186148.046.Google Scholar
Verheyen, R. 2005. Climate change damage and international law: prevention duties and state responsibility. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.10.1163/9789047427407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidas, D. 2000. Implementing the environmental protection regime for the Antarctic. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. 2020. Principles of environmental protection at the poles. In Scott, K. & VanderZwaag, D., eds, Research handbook of polar law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 326–345.Google Scholar
WMO. 2017. Manual on Codes, International Codes, Volume I.2, Annex II to the WMO Technical Regulations. 2015 edition, updated 2017.Google Scholar