Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs

ISSN: 1836-6503 (Print) 2333-6498 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ramo20

The challenges for antarctic governance in the

early twenty-first century

Jeffrey McGee & Nengye Liu

To cite this article: Jeffrey McGee & Nengye Liu (2019) The challenges for antarctic governance
in the early twenty-first century, Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 11:2, 73-77, DOI:
10.1080/18366503.2019.1634940

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2019.1634940

Published online: 17 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 995

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ramo20
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MARITIME & OCEAN AFFAIRS
2019, VOL. 11, NO. 2, 73–77
https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2019.1634940

INTRODUCTION

The challenges for antarctic governance in the early twenty-

first century
a
Jeffrey McGee and Nengye Liub
a
Faculty of Law, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of
Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania; bAdelaide Law School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

From its very creation, management of political tension has been at the heart of the Ant-
arctic governance (Scott 2011). The centerpiece of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), the
1959 Antarctic Treaty, was formed during a period of heightened Cold War competition
between the United States and the Soviet Union (Haward and Griffiths 2011). The Antarctic
Treaty has effectively managed this tension by demilitarising the Antarctic continent and
directing all human presence on the continent towards peaceful use and scientific
research. Throughout its history the ATS has been viewed as a successful example of inter-
national governance because of its ability to maintain its core functions and values while
successfully responding to internal and external pressures (Young 2010, 53).
However, in the early twenty-first century, the ATS is facing a new set of biophysical and
political pressures. Human-induced climate change is also a key driver of change within
the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean environments (Constable et al. 2014). Climate
change has the potential to cause significant biophysical change to Antarctica through
changing patterns of sea ice formation and destabilisation of ice sheets. However,
climate change might also generate new political tensions between states, including ten-
sions arising from range shifting of commercially valuable marine species from mid to high
latitudes (Hobday and Pecl 2014). It is therefore timely to update analysis on the current
and future governance challenges in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean region that will
be affected by climate change.
Moreover, the membership of the Antarctic Treaty has significantly expanded from its
original twelve states. The current fifty-three states within the Antarctic Treaty include
large, fast-rising states (such as China and India) and newly acceding members (such as
Malaysia and Pakistan). There has been recent concern expressed that some of these
development may provide threat to the core values of the ATS (Brady 2017; Hamilton
2018). Furthermore, the ATS is facing significant governance challenges from tourism,
shipping activity, fishing and bioprospecting. All economic uses that create new interests
and potential political tensions. Management of these political and economic tensions will
likely be important for the near- and long-term effectiveness and relevance of the ATS in
the governance of the region.
Antarctica governance is particularly important for Australia. Richard Casey, Australia’s
Minister for External Affairs during the negotiation of the Antarctic Treaty in the late 1950s,
aptly described Antarctica as being ‘of close and immediate concern’ to Australia (Haward
and Griffiths 2011). Australia has significant national interests in the management of the

CONTACT Jeffrey McGee jeffrey.mcgee@utas.edu.au

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
74 J. MCGEE AND N. LIU

Southern Ocean and Antarctica. Australia is an original signatory to the 1959 Antarctic
Treaty and has by far the largest territorial claim. Australia has a strong commitment to
the values and principles of the Antarctic Treaty while retaining its interests as a claimant
state. Australia thereby has sought to balance its national interests with commitments to
consensus, peace and environmental protection. This position has contributed in no small
part to the enduring stability and effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty System. In the 1980s
and 1990s, Australia also took a lead role in addressing significant challenges to the Ant-
arctic Treaty. First in response to the ‘Question of Antarctica’ in the United Nations General
Assembly (Tepper and Haward 2005; Haward and Mason 2011) and then in the nego-
tiations that led to the development of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the
Antarctic Treaty (Haward et al. 2006).
Australia has recently re-affirmed and expanded its longstanding commitment to Ant-
arctica. In 2016, the Commonwealth Government released its Antarctic 20 Year Strategy
and Action Plan (20-year Strategy) (Australian Government 2016). This document outlines
new policy commitments to scientific research and the Australian presence on the conti-
nent, including the construction of a new Antarctic research vessel. The 20-year Strategy
signals a major new outlay of Australian resources to Antarctic science and the Casey,
Mawson and Davis research stations located within the 43% of the Antarctic continent
claimed by Australia, which is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT).
These new policy commitments largely implement the 20-year Antarctic Strategic Plan
(Press 2014).
The following special issue of the Australia Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs pro-
vides a fresh and theoretically informed analysis of challenges for the governance of Ant-
arctica and the Southern Ocean in the early twenty-first century that should be of interest
to stakeholders both within Australia and internationally. Recognising that the practical
realities of Antarctic governance cannot be fully understood through doctrinal legal analy-
sis (i.e. the study of the text of treaties), the four articles in this special issue approach the
task of identifying and analysing the key challenges for Antarctic governance using per-
spectives drawn from the disciplines of International Relations and International Law.
Rather than staying within the usual disciplinary silos the articles in this special issue
seek to synthesise these perspectives in a manner which brings new understanding to
the challenges of Antarctic governance in this early part of the twenty-first-century.
The article by Shirley Scott raises the key issue of the impacts of human-induced climate
change upon Antarctic governance. Scott’s approach is grounded in a realist view of inter-
national relations which seeks to uncover the power relations that structure the content
and operation of treaties. She employs her realist-inspired ‘cognitive structures of
cooperation’ (CSC) theory to analyse both the treaties of the ATS and the global climate
change regime centred on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change 1992 (UNFCCC), including the Kyoto Protocol 1997 and Paris Agreement 2015.
Her analysis finds that both the ATS and the global climate change regime have tended
to privilege regime robustness over problem-solving effectiveness. The UNFCCC has con-
tinued to adapt to changing circumstances, moving from legally binding targets to volun-
tary pledges on emission reduction, but overall has largely failed to reduce global
greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a stabilisation of the atmospheric concentration
of greenhouse gases at a safe level.
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MARITIME & OCEAN AFFAIRS 75

Scott explain the ATS has adroitly moved from a security phase, to a conservation phase
and then an environmental protection phase through the creation of various new treaties
that sit under or alongside the Antarctic Treaty 1959. She argues, however, this robustness
of the ATS is being tested by climate change. The scale of biophysical change that climate
change may have upon the Antarctic environment (e.g. destabilisation of the West Antarc-
tic ice sheets) means that the ATS could become largely irrelevant to the medium to long
term environmental protection of Antarctica. She claims that environmental protection is
the modern foundation ideology of the Antarctic Treaty System, so irrelevance on this
front would spell a significant challenge for Antarctic governance. Scott’s article invites
a rethinking of the assumptions lying beneath the UNFCCC climate regime and ATS
that could lead to greater congruence and mutual reinforcement.
The article by Daniela Sampaio draws on English School theory of international society
(Bull 1977) to analyse current practices concerning the core problem of territorial sover-
eignty which spurred the formation of the Antarctic Treaty 1959. Sampaio points out that
the ‘society of states’, which English School theory identifies as the ordering mechanism
of the international system, is primarily based upon the territorially bounded state exercis-
ing sole jurisdiction over the territory. She explains that Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty
differentiates Antarctica from the rest of international society in that the treaty suspended
considerations of sovereignty by effectively placing territorial claims on hold. Sampaio
points out that the bifocalism of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty has allowed the interests
of both claimant and non-claimants states to be preserved whilst relaxing the usual territo-
rially bounded rules of access typical of international society. Sampaio provides, however,
an important and timely analysis of how, despite Article IV, issues of territoriality have con-
tinued to arise within the ATS during negotiations for an administration of Antarctic
Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs) and Antarctic
Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). Sampaio argues these special areas of protection
within Antarctica demonstrate a pattern of territoriality which can intersect with geopoliti-
cal concerns (e.g. the Chinese Kunlun DOME A ASMA proposal) but will likely continue to
develop and hence needs to be carefully managed to consolidate cooperation in Antarctica.
The article by Nengye Liu builds on this by providing a nuanced geopolitical analysis of
the rise of China as an economic and political power and the impact this might have on
Antarctic governance. This piece provides an important contribution to the debate about
Chinese ambitions in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Liu describes twentieth-century
Chinese engagement with Antarctica in the context of its internal political conflicts and
external conflicts in North Asia. He argues that in the early 1980s, after being freed of
these earlier conflicts, China has rapidly expanded its scientific and broader interest in Ant-
arctica. This expansion in Antarctic interest was contemporaneous with China’s quite
remarkable transition, during the last 30 years, from a poor developing to a leading
global economic and military power. Liu suggests that the expansion of Chinese research
bases, scientific work and tourism in Antarctica is a ‘natural’ reflection of China’s emerging
role as a global power. He believes that China has distinct distant water fishing ambitions
for the Southern Ocean (i.e. for krill) but cautions against suggestions that China will seek
to overturn the Madrid Protocol’s ban on Antarctic mineral activities. Liu also believes that
unlike in the case of the Arctic, Chinese policy on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is still
in a formative stage, leaving the door open for influential Antarctic states, such as Austra-
lia, to enter dialogue which might influence such policy. He argues that current indications
76 J. MCGEE AND N. LIU

that China will continue to work within the ATS in pursuing its interest in Antarctica and
the Southern Ocean.
Finally, the article from Jeffrey McGee and Marcus Haward employs liberal institutionalist
theory on ‘regime complexes’ (Keohane and Victor 2011) to explore the institutional
dynamics of Antarctic governance (Young 2010). Starting with the ATS, they map the pat-
terns of interaction between various functional and spatial governance regimes that
operate within Antarctica and the Southern Ocean (e.g. United Nations Law of the Sea Con-
vention, International Whaling Convention, IMO Polar Code). This mapping of the ‘Antarctic
regime complex’ is used to analyse the patterns of regime interaction between the ATS and
various regimes involved in the governance of global climate change. This analysis suggests
that although global climate change is a very significant threat to the Antarctic environ-
ment, the ATS is unlikely to be able to directly influence the levels of national and collective
emission reduction ambition and other key regulatory decisions that will ultimately deter-
mine the course of this human-caused biophysical change. However, through the conduit
of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), has an important ‘programmatic
role’ in developing new scientific knowledge on the global climate system and Southern
Ocean dynamics that can feed into the UNFCCC negotiations through the work of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and World Meteorological Organisation
(WMO). This is a natural strength of the Antarctic regime complex, grounded in the scientific
aims and structure of the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid Protocol, and likely to continue to be
the key aspect of engagement with climate change governance.
Overall, the editors wish that readers will enjoy these papers on challenges for Antarctic
Governance in the early twenty-first century. It is hoped that this issue will also help further
the academic and policy dialogue in Australia and elsewhere on the human future in the
Antarctic and the Southern Ocean.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Dr Jeffrey McGee is a Senior Lecturer in Climate Change, Marine and Antarctic Law in the Faculty of
Law and Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania. He researches on
the international climate change regime, geoengineering and the geopolitics of the Antarctic gov-
ernance. Dr McGee is an Associate Editor of the Carbon and Climate Law Review and serves on the
editorials boards of International Environmental Agreements, Australian Journal of Maritime and
Ocean Affairs, Case Studies in the Environment and Review of European, Comparative and Inter-
national Environmental Law.
Dr Nengye Liu is a Senior Lecturer at Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide. Dr Liu’s current
research centres on China’s role in global ocean governance, with particular focus on the Polar
Regions. Dr Liu serves as an Associate Editor of the Yearbook of International Environmental Law
(Oxford University Press) and a Review Editor of the Frontiers in Marine Science.

ORCID
Jeffrey McGee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2093-5896
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF MARITIME & OCEAN AFFAIRS 77

References
Australian Government. 2016. Australian Antarctic Strategy and 20 Year Action Plan. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Brady, A. M. 2017. China as a Great Polar Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Constable, A. J., J. Melbourne-Thomas, S. P. Corney, K. R. Arrigo, C. Barbraud, D. K. A. Barnes, N. L.
Bindoff, et al. 2014. “Climate Change and Southern Ocean Ecosystems I: How Changes in
Physical Habitats Directly Affect Marine Biota.” Global Change Biology 20: 3004–3025.
Hamilton, C. 2018. Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia. Richmond: Hardie Grant.
Haward, M., and T. Griffiths, eds. 2011. Australia and the Antarctic Treaty System: Fifty Years of Influence.
Sydney: UNSW Press.
Haward, M., and D. Mason. 2011. “Australia, the United Nations and the Question of Antarctica.” In
Australia and the Antarctic Treaty System: Fifty Years of Influence, edited by M. Haward and T.
Griffiths, 202–221. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Haward, M., D. R. Rothwell, J. Jabour, R. Hall, A. Kellow, L. Kriwoken, G. Lugten, and A. Hemmings.
2006. “Australia’s Antarctic Agenda.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 60 (3): 439–456.
Hobday, A. J., and G. T. Pecl. 2014. “Identification of Global Marine Hotspots: Sentinels for Change and
Vanguards for Adaptation Action.” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24 (2): 415–425.
Keohane, R. O., and D. G. Victor. 2011. “The Regime Complex for Climate Change.” Perspectives on
Politics 9 (1): 7–23.
Press, A. J. 2014. 20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan. http://20yearplan.antarctica.gov.au/data/
assets/pdf_file/0004/146155/20-Year-Plan.pdf.
Scott, S. V. 2011. “Ingenious and Innocuous? Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty as Imperialism.” Polar
Journal 1: 51–62.
Tepper, R., and M. Haward. 2005. “The Development of Malaysia’s Position on Antarctica: 1982 to
2004.” Polar Record 41 (217): 113–124.
Young, O. R. 2010. Institutional Dynamics: Emergent Patterns in International Environmental
Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.