The Antarctic treaty and the evolution of its institutional mechanisms

INTRODUCTION. The article dwells on the issue of evolution of mechanism created to manage the Antarctic region: Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) and Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP). In the paper the main stages of the development of an ATCM as a main “political” body within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) are analysed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on the analysis of the founding documents of the mentioned bodies – Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and Madrid Protocol to it of 1991, as well as the Rules of Procedure of the said bodies. Moreover, functioning of ATCM and CEP is compared to that of the other organs of the ATS – CCAMLR and its Scientific Committee.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The author comes to a conclusion that the Consultative Parties throughout the existence of ATCM managed to effectively use the flexibility built in the Antarctic Treaty by adjusting ATCM to the particular challenges that the they were facing. The efficiency of such an approach is illustrated by the examples of the other organs of the ATS. In particular, the similarities between pairs of ATCM-CEP and CCAMLR - Scientific committee of CCAMLR are demonstrated.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The analysis and classification of ATCM variations as well as of the other fora under the ATCMs has been comprehensively analysed in Russia last in 2002. With regard to this the tendency of attributing more power to CEP is highlighted. In recent time, this is done to the detriment of the ATCM functioning, when its role is sometimes diminished to only approving decisions taken by the CEP. As a conclusion the opinion is expressed that the attempts to politicise the process and manipulate the statuses of different ATS bodies is counterproductive. 

1. Barnes J. A Reminiscence on Antarctic Governance and Transparency: The NGO Role. – Antarctic Affairs. 2018. Vol. V. P. 7–34.

2. Ferrada V.L. Five factors that will decide the future of Antarctica. – The Polar Journal. 2018. Vol. 8. Issue 1. P. 84–109. DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2018.1468623

3. Goldsworthy L., Hemmings A. The Antarctic Protected Area Approach. – Shared Resources: Issues of Governance. Ed. by Sh. Hart. Gland: IUCN. 2008. P. 105–128.

4. Lukin V.V. Russia’s Current Antarctic Policy. – The Polar Journal. 2014. Vol. 4. Issue 1. P. 199–222. DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2014.913926

5. Lukin V.V. Rossiyskiy vzglyad na budushchee razvitie Sistemy Dogovora ob Antarktike [Russian View of the Future Development of the Antarctic Treaty System]. – Rossiyskie polyarnye issledovaniya. 2017. No. 3. P. 42–43. (In Russ.)

6. Lukin V.V., Klokov V.D., Pomelov V.N. Sistema dogovora ob Antarktike [The Antarctic Treaty System]. Saint Petersburg: Gidrometeoizdat Publ. 2002. 400 p. (In Russ.)

7. Reinke M. The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat 15 Years After its Foundation. – Antarctic Affairs. 2018. Vol. V. P. 35–46.

8. Timokhin K.V. Tekushchaya deyatel'nost' Komissii po sokhraneniyu morskikh zhivykh resursov Antarktiki: 37- ya sessiya [Current Activities of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources: 37th Session]. – Rossiyskie polyarnye issledovaniya. 2019 No. 1. P. 22–24. (In Russ.)

9. Vigni P. The Interaction Between the Antarctic Treaty System and the Other Relevant Conventions Applicable to the Antarctic Area: A Practical Approach versus Theoretical Doctrine – Max Planck University Yearbook of United Nations Law. Vol. 4. Ed. by J.A. Frowein and R. Wolfrum. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. 2000. P. 481–542.

10. Vylegzhanin A.N., Pushkareva E.F. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye voprosy ustanovleniya morskikh okhranyaemykh rayonov [Designation of Marine Protected Areas (issues of international law)]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2019. No. 3. P. 22–46. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2019-3-22-46