By virtue of the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, the territorial claims to Antarctica of seven of the original signatories were held in abeyance or “frozen.” Considered by many as an exemplar of international law, the Antarctic Treaty System has come to be increasingly questioned, however, in a very much changed global scenario that presents new challenges to the governance of the White Continent. In this context, it is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of the moral weight of those initial claims, which stand (despite being frozen) as a cornerstone of the treaty. The aim of this article is to offer an appraisal of such claims, which may be divided into two main kinds: those grounded on some relevant link to the territory, and those grounded on official documents and geographical doctrines. After pointing to the limitations and challenges that they face, I conclude with some remarks about how this assessment ought to serve as a starting point to rethink the territorial status of Antarctica.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it', is a common response of Antarctic policy-makers when one starts inquiring into specific aspects of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and suggesting whether some of them might be rethought. 1 The qualified answer that follows is something like this: 'This is an international treaty that started with only 12 signatories in 1959 and has now 54 in total, including all the major global powers, economic and political, and representing the majority of humanity. Since its inception, the Antarctic Treaty (AT) has preserved a whole continent demilitarised and denuclearised, exclusively for peaceful scientific cooperation and environmental protection. It cannot get better than this in international politics. In fact, the treaty is a brilliant piece of diplomacy and an enduring example of what countries can achieve when they decide to cooperate with each other, rather than fight against each other. So, what is the point of questioning it?' (Examples of celebratory statements regarding the ATS are found in Orrego Vicuña, 1986;Watts, 1986;and Triggs, 2011).This answer is understandable. The role of national delegates during the annual AT Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) and other fora-like the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)-is to tread carefully and seek compromise, which more often than not means leaving things as they are. This does not mean that there has been no evolution in the system throughout the years, but this evolution has tended to happen because of external pressure rather than internal initiative. The clearest example of this was the 'Question of Antarctica', placed among the topics for discussion in the United Nations General Assembly from 1983 to 2005. By challenging the exclusion of the developing world in Antarctic governance, this movement-kickstarted by Malaysia-effectively resulted in a growing membership within the Antarctic Treaty and a more open and transparent system (Beck, 2006).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.