INTERNATIONAL LAW PROJECT

Name- Shaghil Nasid

Enrollment no.- 2021-342-099
Subject- International Law-I (502)
Topic- Regulating Antarctic Tourism: The Challenge of
Consensus-Based Decision Making
Semester- 5th
Department- HILSR
Authors – Kees Bastmeijer, Akiho Shibata, Imme
Steinhage, Luis Valentine Ferrada and Evan T. Bloom
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks to Professor Mr.

Tabish Iqbal sir, who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project titled “Regulating Antarctic Tourism: The
Challenge of Consensus-Based Decision Making”.

I came to know about ‘The Antarctic Treaty’and its role in

international law agreements and the governing activities in
Antarctica to set forth principles for its peaceful and cooperative
use.

Thank you

Regards,
Shaghil Nasid
4th Semester
CONTENT

1.Summary
2.Criticisms
Summary
Regulating Antarctic tourism is crucial to protect the unique environment and
fragile ecosystems of the region. The Antarctic Treaty System, which includes the
Antarctic Treaty1 and its related agreements, serves as the primary framework for
governing activities in Antarctica, including tourism. The Antarctic Treaty, signed
in 1959, designates Antarctica as a scientific preserve and prohibits any military
activity, mineral mining, and nuclear testing on the continent. The treaty promotes
international cooperation in scientific research and sets guidelines for the
protection of the environment. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the
Antarctic Treaty2, also known as the Madrid Protocol, specifically addresses
environmental concerns, including the regulation of tourism. Prior to conducting
tourism activities in Antarctica, tour operators are generally required to conduct
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). EIAs assess the potential
environmental impacts of proposed tourism operations and help identify measures
to mitigate those impacts. This process ensures that tourism activities are
conducted in a manner that minimizes harm to the environment. The Antarctic
Treaty System has developed site-specific guidelines for different areas in
Antarctica to protect unique ecosystems and sensitive wildlife habitats. These
guidelines provide specific instructions for visitors, such as maintaining a safe
distance from wildlife, avoiding sensitive areas, and minimizing disturbance to
nesting sites. To manage the number of visitors and minimize the cumulative
impacts of tourism, certain areas in Antarctica may have visitor limits or
restrictions. Zoning measures may be in place to designate areas for specific
activities, such as wildlife viewing, scientific research, or historical sites, while
limiting human presence in sensitive areas. Various organizations, such as the
International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO)3, have developed
best practices and codes of conduct for tourism operators and visitors.

____________________________________________________
1. The Antarctic Treaty, 402 U.N.T.S.71

2. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, October 4 1991, 30 ILM 1455

3. IAATO is a self-management organization of the Antarctic tourist sector, established in 1991.

Effective waste management is crucial in Antarctica to prevent pollution and
preserve the pristine environment. Tour operators are typically required to have
robust waste management plans, including strict protocols for waste disposal,
recycling, and the removal of all waste from the continent. This helps prevent
littering and contamination of land, water, and wildlife habitats .

One of the significant concerns in Antarctica is the introduction of non-native

species, as they can have devastating impacts on the delicate ecosystems. To
mitigate this risk, strict biosecurity measures are in place. Tourists are required to
follow guidelines to prevent the introduction of invasive species, including
cleaning and disinfecting equipment and clothing to minimize the transfer of
organisms from one location to another.

The Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959, and entered into force on
June 23, 1961. It was a result of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-
19584, during which numerous scientific expeditions took place in Antarctica.
Recognizing the need to protect the region and promote scientific research, 12
countries active in Antarctica at the time signed the treaty.

The treaty distinguishes between Consultative Parties and Non-Consultative

Parties. Consultative Parties are countries that were actively involved in the
scientific research conducted during the IGY and have demonstrated their
commitment to the objectives of the treaty. Non-Consultative Parties are countries
that have an interest in Antarctica but have not met the criteria for consultative
status.

The treaty allows for amendments to be proposed and adopted through consensus
among Consultative Parties. Over the years, additional agreements and protocols
have been added to the treaty system to address specific issues, such as liability for
environmental emergencies and the regulation of tourism.

4. Nicolet, Marcel. “The International Geophysical Year (1957—1958): Great Achievements and
Minor Obstacles.” GeoJournal, vol. 8, no. 4, 1984, pp. 303–20. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41143298
Criticism

While the Antarctic Treaty has been widely regarded as a successful international
agreement, it has faced some criticism and challenges. Here are a few areas of
criticism:

1. Limited Scope: One criticism is that the Antarctic Treaty primarily focuses on
scientific research and environmental protection, while not adequately addressing
other aspects of Antarctic governance. For example, it does not provide a
comprehensive framework for managing economic activities such as fishing,
tourism, or potential resource exploitation. As a result, some argue that the treaty
should be expanded to include more comprehensive regulations and guidelines for
these activities.

2. Territorial Claims: The Antarctic Treaty's provision to "freeze" territorial

claims in Antarctica has been both praised and criticized. While it aims to prevent
conflicts over territorial disputes, some argue that it merely defers the resolution of
claims and does not provide a clear path towards resolving long-standing territorial
conflicts in the region.

3. Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: The Antarctic Treaty relies heavily on

voluntary compliance and lacks strong enforcement mechanisms. While violations
of the treaty's provisions are rare, critics argue that the absence of robust
enforcement mechanisms may undermine the effectiveness of the treaty in
addressing potential breaches or non-compliance by parties.
4. Tourism Regulation: The growth of tourism in Antarctica has raised concerns
about the impact on the environment and wildlife. Critics argue that the Antarctic
Treaty and its associated agreements, such as the Protocol on Environmental
Protection, do not provide sufficient regulations and monitoring mechanisms to
address the potential environmental impacts of tourism adequately. They suggest
the need for stricter regulations and more comprehensive guidelines to ensure
sustainable and responsible tourism practices.

5. Governance and Decision-Making: The decision-making process within the

Antarctic Treaty system has been criticized for being slow and cumbersome. As
decisions require consensus among Consultative Parties, some argue that it can
impede timely responses to emerging issues and challenges. Critics propose
streamlining decision-making processes to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.

6. Inclusion of Non-Governmental Stakeholders: The Antarctic Treaty system

primarily involves governments and Consultative Parties, with limited participation
of non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. Critics argue that
greater involvement of non-governmental stakeholders, including indigenous
communities, environmental organizations, and industry representatives, could
bring diverse perspectives and expertise to the decision-making process.

It's important to note that the criticism of the Antarctic Treaty does not negate its
overall accomplishments in preserving Antarctica as a peaceful and cooperative
scientific preserve. However, these criticisms highlight areas where improvements
or additional measures could be considered to address emerging challenges and
ensure the long-term sustainability of the region.