There is no place in the world like Antarctica.

It is the only continent in the world consisting of just one time-zone (Zulu-time) and only one day transpires each year. Except for penguins and seals, which live and hunt in the water, the largest fully terrestrial animal is a flightless insect half a centimeter long.1 It is unique for its coastal wind speeds, which gust at speeds up to 180mph, as the frigid air spills down from the relatively wind-less Polar Plateau. As seen from the ocean, it is the only continent whose continental shelf slopes inward, instead of outward towards the sea, due to the crushing weight of the worlds largest glacier. It is the

worlds harshest desert, so cold and dry that the skies are clear every single day: clouds literally freeze solid, raining ice crystals onto the surface.2 However, although Antarctica presents a

truly stunning specimen for nature, it is equally unique in terms its political administration and the conventions through which it is ruled. The Antarctic Treaty System, the mechanism that governs Antarctica, is unlike any other international convention on this planet and beyond.3 Furthermore, the characteristics that set it apart from other accords might also be responsible, in part, for the regimes admirable record of success and international compliance.

Sandro, Luke; Constible, Juanita. "Antarctic Bestiary Terrestrial Animals". Laboratory for Ecophysiological Cryobiology, Miami University. Retrieved 6 December 2011. rd 2 Antarctica. The National Geographic Family Refernce Atlas of the World. 3 edition. 2010. 3 beyond refers to the conventions on Outer Space and the Moon.

Origins The Antarctic Treaty System came into effect in 1961. It was borne out of lengthy negotiations beginning in the years after WWII, which culminated with the signing of the treaty in December 1959. The Antarctic Treaty System had its genesis like many other international organizations: a period of chaos and uncertainty followed by an international effort to reestablish order through the creation of a multilateral institution.4 However, in many ways, the institution through which the international community administers Antarctica is remarkably unique. Upon further examination, from the historical circumstances surrounding the initial negotiations to the very text of the agreement itself, the ATS and its related institutions stand apart from other wellknown intergovernmental organizations of similar size and scope. Additionally, in the 50 years since its enactment, the ATS has enjoyed a great degree of success despite serious political divisions among its members. The ATS has weathered the Cold War, survived global armed conflict and in the process seen its membership swell by more than 300%. The Antarctic Treaty System has undergone major structural changes since its original ratification, particularly over the last twenty years. However, although the states that originally established the regime may have looked to other international organizations for inspiration, there were a few differences in its formation that proved fortuitous. Before the treaty, the continent of Antarctica was divided by several, often competing, claims of sovereignty by various states. Because there was no significant permanent human habitation on the continent, sovereignty
4

Inis Claude, in Swords into Plowshares (4th edition, New York. McGraw-Hill: 1956), makes this point on page 46 as she writes that the great organizational endeavors of the modern world have been parts of the aftermath of great wars

claims stemmed not from permanent settlement or local populations, but rather from several legal principles. Among them are discovery, occupation, administration, inherited rights,

geographic contiguity and the famous polar sector principle. 5 In the 1940s, there were at least seven competing claims of sovereignty over Antarctic territory and some of these claims indeed overlapped6. Furthermore, there were a few potential claims over Antarctic lands not directed at a specific territory7. The bases of these claims can be as distant as the countries from which they originate. Argentina and Chile base their claims chiefly on the principles of contiguity (their claims are considered natural southern extensions of their territory, all the way to the pole). Interestingly, they also cite inherited rights from the former Spanish Empire, going back to the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494, which granted all lands west of a certain meridian to Spain.8 Russia and France made claims based on discovery, as did other countries. The United Kingdom and Norway made claims based on several principles, and are forever famously linked to Antarctic history through the heroic polar expeditions of the early 20th century. The famous sector

principle, applied to the Antarctic as to the Arctic, states that continental claims on the southern continent extended all the way to the pole, in essence, dividing the region up so that the political map of Antarctica resembles a segmented orange.9 Occupation and administration include states that had been heavily involved in scientific, commercial and cultural activities in Antarctica,

Shusterich, Kurt M. The Antarctic Treaty System: History, Substance and Speculation. International Journal 39.4 Polar Politics (Autumn 1984): 802 6 Argentina, Chile, Australia, United Kingdom, Norway, France, and New Zealand. 7 Belgium, United States and the USSR. 8 Shusterich, 801. 9 Ibid., 802.

including the United States and Belgium, among others. All told, by the end of World War II, there were no fewer than 11 states that were directly concerned with Antarctic sovereignty.10 As diplomatic tensions rose in the region over competing claims corresponding with the rise of international cooperation through global institutions like the United Nations, the need for a formal arrangement on Antarctica clearly came in to focus.11 In 1947, the British offered to take Argentina and Chile to the International Court of Justice so as to resolve their overlapping claims in Antarctica. However, this offer was refused, but the increasing tensions did not escape notice of the United States. In 1948, the U.S. floated the first plan for an international

condominium administration of Antarctica. A condominium arrangement refers to the fact that each country would independently administer their own sovereign territory, but refer to the other stake holders on continental matters. This first attempt at resolution was soundly rejected by the Antarctic states, but the discussions on the matter were already influencing the landscape of international politics. During the summer of 1948-1949 (December-March, when the ice is

thawed and sunlight prevails), the three governments of Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom all pledged to refrain from sending warships to Antarctica.12 Despite the political

differences between the governments, all involved recognized the norm taking shape to maintain the neutrality of Antarctic territory. Although negotiations were gaining steam by the end of the 1940s, in 1950 the Korean War broke out, diverting attentions and stalling progress. Furthermore, an international incident involving hostilities in the Falklands drove a wedge between Argentina and the United Kingdom.
10

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States. 11 Hanessian, John. The Antarctic Treaty 1959. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 9.3 (July 1960): 437. 12 Ibid., 443.

However, the planning of the International Geophysical Year program, having gathered momentum by 1954, was bringing together several states from across the political spectrum in the name of cooperation and scientific research in Antarctica. Busy preparing for the I.G.Y., the claimant states temporarily shelved the question of sovereignty.13 However, it was the runaway success of the I.G.Y. program in 1957-58, specifically in regards to the spectacular level of intergovernmental cooperation, which inspired the states to revive negotiations.14 Ultimately, the states settled on an agreement that might continue the cooperation of the I.G.Y.,15 committed to the importance of joint scientific research and demilitarization. In

parallel, it implemented a freeze on all sovereignty claims, altogether sidestepping the most contentious issue. When the agreement was finally signed in 1959 following a negotiation process that lasted more than ten years, a consortium arrangement was finally worked out between twelve states for administration of the continent. The states that signed the Antarctic Treaty would be known as Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) and included, in no particular order: Argentina, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. An Independent Arrangement Although a proposition was raised to include a clause about Antarctic administration in the United Nations Charter,16 and several subsequent attempts were made to address the issue in the General Assembly, a UN solution to the Question of Antarctica was consistently rejected.
Shusterich, 805. Ibid., 448. 15 The original twelve states invited to Washington to negotiate the ATS in 1959 were also the twelve states that participated in the IGY. 16 Hanessian, 437.
14 13

This was because Antarctica is not equally owned (or not owned) by the people of planet Earth, as might be the case for other international ownership treaties of the UN, such as international waters, outer space and the Moon. In Antarctica, there are actual claims of national ownership and sovereignty by several states, many based on firm legal standing, and the United Nations would have a difficult time challenging any of these claims. Even if the UN could successfully claim the legal authority to sort out the sovereignty question in Antarctica, its machinery would most likely grind to a halt over the resulting political quagmire that would directly ensnare several of the great powers. Therefore, an effective treaty on Antarctica would have to be without the consultation and involvement of the GA, and without a resolution from the Security Council. The agreement would have to be by consensus of all the powers that either claimed sovereignty or reserved the right to claim sovereignty over Antarctic territory, based on direct national interests. For this reason, although many international accords of such scope and magnitude are universal, and include or invite all UN member states to participate and contribute, the original negotiations over Antarctica were far more exclusive. Only twelve states were invited to Washington, D.C. for the conference, and discussions were conducted in secret so as to provide the greatest opportunity for negotiation away from public pressures and interference.17 Ultimately, this strategy paid dividends and true consensus was achieved. If one major difference between the genesis of the Antarctic Treaty System and other globally minded international organizations was that the ATS summit was not universal, another would have to be its gradual maturation process. In fact, the Antarctic Treaty System is

constantly evolving, undergoing changes far more drastic than other IOs. Many major global bodies are chartered with their administrative structure set in stone and their chief organs firmly

17

Ibid., 461.

in place. For example, all the major organs of both the League of Nations and the United Nations were clearly laid out in the Covenant in Paris and the Charter in San Francisco, respectively. However, the consensus agreement on Antarctica that was signed in 1959 (and came in to effect in 1961) consisted of just one major body that wielded absolute administrative power: the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. The meetings convened every other year, and consisted of regular conferences between representatives of the ATCPs. At these meetings, all matters concerning the continent were decided with the advice of non-consultative parties, NGOs and expert observers, and disputes were settled through independent peaceful means (with the option of deferring to the International Court of Justice).18 However, in 1991, the ATS

added the Committee on Environmental Protection (often referred to as the Environmental Protocol) as a secondary organ. Furthermore, in 2004, a formal secretariat was created along with a full-time staff, executive officer and a permanent headquarters in Buenos Aires. Today, the Secretariat is the public face of the ATS, and represents the evolving nature of the regime. No one can be sure as what further organs, if any, will be added to aid with the execution of the values and mission of the Antarctic system, but if history is any indication, it is likely to evolve even further, as needed. Because Antarctica is administered by several states through a multilateral treaty system, it is often incorrectly perceived to be international territory. Further fueling this misconception is the frequent allusion to Antarctica as a heritage for all mankind and likeminded phraseology found throughout the UN General Assembly and even the treaties of the ATS.19 However, although Antarctica might be for all people, this does not imply that all people can be in charge of its administration. Administration of Antarctica is carried out by the nations of the ATS, and
18 19

Text of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, Article XI. Shusterich, 817.

motions and measures at ATCMs can only be decided by the twenty-eight ATCPs.20

In other

words, any state that is not a party to the ATS has absolutely no say in Antarctic administration and any state that does not have a direct interest or involvement on the continent will never have any say- despite the fact that all humans around the world presumably have an equal claim to the heritage of Antarctica. Although a select international condominium administration of Antarctica may sound less equitable or legitimate than a truly global arrangement, a United Nations trusteeship (per Chapter XII of the UN Charter) would be inappropriate based on several grounds. Article 76(b) of the UN Charter states that a trusteeship must promote political, social and economic progress for local inhabitants.21 However, there is no native society of Antarctica and there are no permanent inhabitants that might benefit from such a regime. Article 77 refers to any prior political arrangement that has bequeathed the territory to international trusteeship.22 However, none of the Antarctic metropols were losers of World War II or willingly relinquished their claims over the continent.23 Article 79 states that any trusteeship shall be agreed upon by the states directly concerned.24 Therefore, without the consent of claimant states, any such global trusteeship over Antarctica would be illegal. Article 80(1) prohibits the administration of any trusteeship that might infringe on the rights of any state25, which confiscating the sovereign territory of that state would certainly entail. For these reasons, the ATCPs would never consent to turning over

As of this writing. Any state wishing to become a consultative member to the Treaty must have significant activity in Antarctica and a unanimous invitation from ATCPs (Hannessian 474). 22 United Nations Charter, Article 77. 23 Japan, a loser of WWII, did not have any claims to Antarctica that a UN trustee could administer. However, it was included in the 1959 ATS summit, because of its participation in the International Geophysical Year. 24 United Nations Charter. 25 Ibid.
21

20

administration of their sovereign territorial claims to the United Nations. Even if they did, the legality of that trusteeship would still be in question.26 ATS Principal Organs I. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting and Parties (1961) The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) is the ultimate organ of the Treaty System. In fact, for the first thirty years of the treatys existence, from 1961 until 1991, it was the only main organ of the System, and the only vehicle through which the international community could hope to influence administration of the continent. Until 1991, there were other organizations involved in Antarctica, even international conventions, but they were generally limited to dealing in science, the environment and geology rather than politics. Since 1994, the ATCM has met annually at conferences around the world, and consists of representation from ATCPs, non-consultative parties (such as CEP signatories), other relevant organizations and conventions. Although there may be many states represented and several NGOs and individuals in attendance at the ATCM, only ATCPs are allowed to vote at the meetings. Since the entire sovereignty of Antarctica lies completely with the ATCP states in a consortium arrangement, every decision enacted by any international body must receive the consent of the ATCM. The 1959 Antarctic Treaty established the ATCM and consisted of fourteen articles, eventually entering in to force in 1961. It was based on the fantastic degree of international cooperation and collaboration during the International Geophysical Year project. The treaty preserves Antarctica for peaceful means, and encourages scientific research and cooperation among all of its signatories. Article IV puts a freeze on all new and old sovereignty claims to the
The UN trusteeship committee was officially decommissioned in 1994 after the independence of Palau. Therefore, it is doubtful that the administrative machinery even exists to allow for a global trusteeship.
26

continent, placating those signatories who were concerned about their national rights. Article V bans nuclear explosions and disposal from Antarctica and Article VI defines the jurisdiction of the treaty to areas south of 60S (including certain territories and boundaries to the immediate north). Article VII of the treaty stands out as the most profound and innovative section. It calls for the unlimited and unimpeded access of ATCP observers to facilities and territories anywhere on the continent, in order to ensure mutual compliance with the treaty. It also calls for the completely unrestricted aerial surveillance by any ATCP of any other treaty party in Antarctica. Interestingly, the ATS is the first agreement signed between the United States and the Soviet Union allowing for mutual inspections.27 Furthermore, it requires that an ATCP inform every other party about any upcoming expeditions or scientific missions in the region. Article IX deals less with matters of observation, but more in matters of exchange of information and cooperation between the ATCPs in Antarctica. These two articles hold the key to international cooperation on the continent, as jealously guarded sovereignty claims are balanced out by increased communication, transparency and trust. II. The Committee on Environmental Protocol (1991) The first major structural overhaul of the ATS occurred just as the treaty came up for its thirty year review.28 The passing decades had seen a dramatic increase in membership in the United Nations, the overwhelming majority of which were states from the developing world. These newer and less developed states were greatly concerned with the possibility that ATCPs

27 28

Hannessian, 471. As stipulated in Artcile XII of the treaty.

10

might exploit and unevenly benefit from Antarctic resources.29 Furthermore, the rise of the influence of NGOs in international organizations had done much to educate the public and governments around the world about the importance of the environment and its heritage in Antarctica.30 As a result, the ATCPs were facing increased pressure to either adopt stricter guidelines that would limit their unchallenged power over the continent or to share their sovereignty with other non-ATCP states. Following oil-spill disasters in the late 1980s in both the Antarctic and the Arctic regions31, public consciousness as to the dangers of unregulated mineral extraction in the environmentally pristine Polar Regions was further heightened. The

result of this lobbying by both the international community and civil society was the ATCM adoption of a Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP). The CEP, adopted in the early 1990s, is a body wholly subordinated to the ATCM, and is advisory only.32 However, it represents an effective compromise to raise awareness and

accountability of ATCPs and their actions. The CEP collects and disseminates envinronmental, meteorological and scientific data. It studies not just the local flora and fauna of the continent, but also the impacts of human habitation.33 It lays down guidelines for the disposal and

treatment of waste, as well as procedures for setting up bases and appropriately and responsibly executing expeditions. Although it has no enforcement mechanisms, and all of its

recommendations and reports are subject to approval by the ATCM, the CEP seems based in increasing the flow and exchange of information between the three principle interest groups in

29

Redgwell, Catherine. Environmental Protocol on Antarctica: The 1991 Protocol. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 43.3 (July 1994): 601. 30 ibid., 602. 31 Bahai Paraiso wreck near Palmer Station (U.S.A.) in Antarctica and Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Ibid., 602. 32 Ibid., 611. 33 Ibid., 624.

11

Antarctica: the ATCPs, the international community and the public at large.34 The ATCPs have always been concerned with political risks regarding their behavior in the Antarctic. The

international community may have been most concerned with economic and resource exploitation and the ATCPs enriching themselves to the exclusion of other nations. Finally, the general public, for whom Antarctica is an environmental heritage, is most concerned about the preservation of the natural state of the continent and the ecosystem. By calling for improved

transparency between the ATCPs and improved public access to ATCM deliberations, the CEP cleverly attempts to blur the lines between political and environmental risks, giving weight to public considerations in the eyes of the ATCM.35 States that do not conduct significant operations in Antarctica but still wish to participate in the ATS, are ineligible to join the ATCM as voting members. However, they are welcome to join the CEP and may attend the ATCM summits with full delegations. Unlike ATCPs, CEP members are not permitted to participate in direct ATCM decision making.36 They may, of course, participate in CEP measures and debates. However, their debates may go to waste and their views may fall on deaf ears, as all CEP recommendations are subject to the approval of the ATCM. The Committee on Environmental Protection generally convenes about once a year in parallel with the ATCM summit. However, when the need arises, the CEP may meet between summits with the approval of the ATCPs.37 The CEP acknowledges other environmental

conventions in Antarctica, including the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine

34 35

Ibid., 612-613, 621. Ibid., 621-622. 36 Revised ATCM Rules of Procedure (2008): 29. 37 Revised Rules of Procedure for the Committee For Environmental Protection (2010): Rule 9.

12

Living Resources (CCAMLR).38 There are currently twenty-one states that have acceded to the CEP, but have not become full ATCPs in the Antarctic Treaty System.

III. The Secretariat (2004) The second major overhaul to the structure of the System occurred in 2004, when the

ATCPs negotiated the establishment of a permanent Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty that would support the work and activities of the ATCM. The Secretariat is itself a product of the global age. Currently, over 80% of the worlds population is represented by states who are party to the Antarctic Treaty39, and the difficulty of managing such an arrangement, based on logistical considerations alone, has been significantly magnified over the decades. The Secretariat

mechanism enables the ATCM to relegate administrative and clerical tasks, so that member states can focus on more important matters of action. The mission of the Secretariat, according to the measure upon which it is founded, is devoid of any executive or legislative character. The ATCPs that established the organ were careful not to surrender any of their own power in the agreement, as they specifically instruct the Secretariat when and where to assist and support the ATCM. Article I points out that the Secretariat is a subordinate organ to the ATCM. Article II lists the numerous duties of the Secretariat, including: assisting the host government in the preparation of ATCM meetings; collation of information for ATCM/CEP meetings; prepare meeting agenda and reports; translation and interpretation; copying, organizing and distributing documents; drafting final

38 39

Redgwell, 623. Scoti, Karen. Institutional Developments within the Antarctic System. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 52.2 (April, 2003): 476.

13

reports; coordination and facilitation of communication between ATCPs; and representing and educating the public and other international organizations about the Antarctic Treaty System.40 The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat maintains a website containing public archives and information databases compiled from the ATCM and several related organizations. The country code top level domain (ccTLD) for identifying web addresses for Antarctica is .aq (e.g. www.ats.aq).

In what was for so many years a mysterious and exclusive international organization, Article III established an office of the Executive Secretary: an individual who would lead the Secretariat. Finally, Antarctica was given, in a sense, a face to the name. The Executive

Secretary hires all his own staff, meaning that he does not need to seek the approval of the ATCM. He is to be a national of one of the ATCPs, and his terms last four years. The Executive Secretary is not to serve for more than two terms.41 The Secretariat headquarters is located in Buenos Aires. It is financed by the ATCPs: generally 50% of equal contributions from each party, and generally 50% from varying contributions depending on the extent of Antarctic activities of each party. Adjustments to this structure are possible, depending on a partys capacity to pay. The Headquarters Agreement provides for diplomatic immunity for Secretariat staff in Argentina, although not in every country party to the Antarctic Treaty. The Secretariat is comprised of an international staff working on behalf of the ATCM itself, and not for their own national interest. This international commitment mirrors the staff at other major international organizations, most notably the United Nations.42 Although the Secretariat, representing the only organ involved in the administration

of an entire continent, might seem to wield impressive power and importance, it is important to
41

ATCM XXV CEP VI (Madrid, 2003), Measure #1: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, Article 2. Annex to Decision 3 (2003): Staff Regulations for the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty: Regulation 6.1. 42 United Nations Charter: Article 100 (on The Secretariat ).

40

14

remember that it is still completely subordinate to the ATCM and its members. Regulation 2.4 of the Annex to Decision 3 (2003): Staff Regulations for the Secretariat states that in the performance of their duties, staff members may neither seek nor accept instructions from any government or authority43 other than the ATCM.44 In other words, the Secretariat is to take no initiative on its own. All of its duties are clearly spelled out in ATCM decisions. Just about the only liberty it has is the ability to procure movable property (although for any non-movable property, it must seek the approval of the ATCM). And lest anyone think that the Secretariat might grow to develop its own bloated bureaucracy and diplomatic corps, a quick survey of the Secretariat website reveals a permanent staff of just nine individuals.45 Prior to the establishment of the Secretariat, the United States government in Washington, D.C., as the site of the treaty signing, was the central depository for ATS agreements and documents. As such, Washington was also responsible for collecting and

disseminating the relevant information in the four Antarctic languages (English, French, Russian and Spanish) to all the parties to the treaty. However, since the founding of the Secretariat, the headquarters in Buenos Aires is the official depository, archivist and dispensary of ATS information.46 The three organs of the ATS account for three major issues of Antarctic governance: political (ATCM), scientific-environmental (CEP) and administrative (Secretariat). However, the ATS also encompasses lesser conventions and issues. The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) was created in 1988, and brings together national Antarctic

43 44

My underline. Annex to Decision 3 (2003): Staff Regulations for the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty: Regulation 2.4. 45 Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website < http://ats.aq/e/about.htm>, accessed December 7, 2011. 46 Ibid.

15

programs outside the formal and politically charged boardroom of the ATCM. Every ATCP has a national program that organizes its operations in Antarctica, and COMNAP provides a forum for these various programs to exchange information, discuss best practices and facilitate partnerships. COMNAP chiefly supports scientific research in Antarctica, and provides the ATS with objective and practical, technical and non-political advice based on the expertise aggregated from the various national programs. COMNAP reports annually to the ATCM.47 Another important organization in Antarctica is the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). SCARs roots predate even the ATS, and it was established following the International Geophysical Year in 1957 in order to continue and better mobilize international scientific cooperation in Antarctica. Its membership consists of delegates from ATCPs as well as from international scientific organizations. SCAR publishes scientific data, information and reports all for public consumption. Similar to COMNAP, it aims to provide international, independent, scientific advice to the Antarctic Treaty and to other bodies.48 SCAR is widely recognized as one of the most important and revered organizations operating in Antarctica. Although most of the discussion around Antarctica is with regard to scientific research or environmental protection, responsible regulation of tourism is also an important aspect of international cooperation.49 The International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators

(IAATO), established in 1991, also works closely with the Treaty Secretariat to advocate, promote and practice safe and environmentally responsible private-sector travel to the Antarctic. Although fewer than 50,000 tourists visit Antarctica in a typical year50, they arrive
47 48

COMNAP website < https://www.comnap.aq/>, accessed December 6, 2011. SCAR website < http://www.scar.org/> , accessed December 6, 2011. 49 The CEP agreement includes an annex that briefly addresses tourism related issues. 50 By contrast, more than 700,000 people pass through Manhattan s Grand Central Terminal every day (MTAMetroNorth: GCT Tours, 30 November 2011.).

16

on the sea, over land and in the air, and their impact on operations and the delicate environment can be significant. However, careful regulation of tourism should not be thought of as

restrictive. The IAATO provides a framework for responsible tourism, ensuring that any of Earths 7 billion humans can enjoy the Antarctica without destructively disturbing the continent for future generations. IAATO members consist of private tour operators from around the world. Not every tour operator is a member of IAATO.51 Language of the Accords One interesting theme that has cropped up in the texts of the ATS conventions over the years is the importance that careful phraseology has played in its success. In at least two of the major conventions, the 1959 Treaty as well as the 1991 CEP agreement,52 language has been filed down or generalized so as to broaden the base for international consensus. For example, the territory of Antarctica as mentioned in the treaty has never been specifically defined.53 Furthermore, there are still undefined questions of jurisdiction (especially with regard to criminal law in Antarctica).54 Similarly, the willingness of the parties to table or temporarily freeze contentious issues, instead of tackling them head on, has aided in the adoption of ATS regulations, despite great political differences between some ATCPs. Traditionally, failing to meticulously define items in a contract or neglecting to address difficult points of disagreement could present legal or operational obstacles. However, because of the special circumstances that surrounded Antarctic

51 52

IAATO website < http://iaato.org/what-is-iaato>, accessed December 6, 2011. Redgwell, 606. 53 Hannessian 472 54 Ibid.

17

cooperation from 1959 right up to the present day, the non-confrontational nature of the drafting was the precisely formula for fostering trust and consensus. The body of states governing Antarctica is not, and certainly was not in the early days of the convention, a large group. It numbered only twelve states in 1959, and today consists of only twenty-eight. Additionally, although these states may have been at odds politically beyond the boundaries of 60S, such as the United States and the USSR during the cold war or the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands, the ATCPs were able to find vast common ground with regard to Antarctica itself. By choosing certain vague language, freezing certain issues

such as sovereignty and letting sleeping dogs lie, cooperation was built around a proven source of mutual understanding: the scientific, environmental and civil cooperation of the International Geophysical Year experiment.55 Evaluation By all accounts, the Treaty system has been a rousing success. Since the moment of its signing, it introduced new normative expectations of international behavior that have so far proved incredibly persuasive. This has ensured widespread compliance, even among states that are not party to the ATS. Furthermore, the high-degree of compliance has not only eliminated cheating by states both within and outside the ATS, it has also negated the need for revising the original principles of the Antarctic treaty, even though they are considered to be rife with vagaries and ambiguities. Furthermore, the very reason for the negotiation of an Antarctic treaty, to resolve the question of sovereignty on the continent, has never been addressed and most likely will not be in our lifetimes. Despite these apparent blemishes, Antarctica thrives as an

55

Shusterich, 806-807.

18

international regime. It is a temple to scientific research, a haven from nuclear activity and military personnel from all nationalities abound (in support of peaceful efforts) without even the slightest suspicion of hostile intentions. inspection.56 Legacy For thousands of years, the nation-state has tirelessly scoured the surface of the Earth, seeking to conquer the planet through colonization and exploitation of virgin territory. Civilization had uncovered lands high and low, wet and dry, fertile and arid. Terrain of every imaginable type had been drained, irrigated, claimed, mapped and settled. However, in 1911, exactly 100 years ago today, the millennial sprint finally came to an end when man first reached the South Pole: truly the last place on Earth.57 After racing to chart our planet, our home, mankind had finally run out of territory to explore. Although the 20th century was already wellunderway, civilization no longer had collective direction, and spent the next thirty-five years mired in unprecedented violence and terror. For the next three decades, chaos ensued, tearing down most of the civil institutions that had guided humanity up until that point. As the In fact, since 1959, no ATCP has ever failed an

confusion of two global wars subsided, the financial, political and sociological realms were completely reinvented, making way for a gentler and more compassionate modernity. Civilization in the aftermath of World War II, with the terrestrial map now completely filled in, faces two new directions and responsibilities: on the one hand to explore space and chart new maps, and on the other to further develop the map that we already have. Sure enough, some of the greatest advancements of the last fifty have involved extending mankinds presence in space

56 57

Ibid., 808. Amundsen s expedition reached the South Pole on December 14, 2011.

19

and other celestial discoveries,58 as well as development of global infrastructure, communications and sustainability here on Earth. Although the international community continues to debate how best to preserve and develop our planet for the future, Antarctica has been more or less protected from the political wrangling. Due to unlikely international cooperation and coordination, perhaps against all odds, it remains a limitless depository of knowledge, a haven for nature and a heritage for all people and for future generations. It was the last place on Earth to be reached by men and under the stewardship of the Antarctic Treaty and the very best that our limited international political system can offer it, it will be the last place on Earth to be owned.59

On December 6, 2011, NASA announced the first discovery of an Earth-like planet in our galaxy with a reasonable chance of supporting life. Perhaps, in the next few centuries, this world will provide a further landscape for humans to study and chart. 59 By the sector principle, 90 degrees S, the South Pole, cannot mathematically be claimed (although the United States maintains Amundsen-Scott Station there).

58

20