Antarctic Treaty System An Assessment: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Beardmore South Field Camp, Antarctica, January 7-13, 1985 (1986) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
21. The Antarctic Treaty System from the Perspective of a State Not Party to the System
21. The Antarctic Treaty System from the Perspective of a State Not Party to the System
Pages 305-314
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 305... ...
These are the following: First, the Antarctic Treaty consultative parties (ATCPs) were clearly determined not to widen or deepen any involvement of the United Nations (U.N.)
|
From page 306... ...
At the risk of appearing presumptuous and simplistic, therefore, I will assert that the basic case that the ATCPs advance for insisting on their rights to decision-making in Antarctica, which are exclusive to themselves, which are total -- to cover all aspects of Antarctica -- and which are not subject to review by any authority, is based on the argument of their expertise and experience in Antarctica. The management of Antarctica, it is said, is sophisticated stuff, and only those states that have real knowledge, based on actual experience in Antarctica, should have the right to make decisions relating to it.
|
From page 307... ...
It is unfortunate that every questioning of the current Antarctic Treaty System is read, deliberately or otherwise, by the ATCPs as meaning only the first alternative. In fact, one of the disquieting features of the recent debate was the reaction of extreme sensitivity and
|
From page 308... ...
The case for this first alternative is in fact quite straightforward. Its proponents simply assert that the days when rights may be asserted on grounds such as discovery, occupation, contiguity, inherited rights, geological affinity, possession -- or of nexpertisen -- are past; they go on to point out that Antarctica has no permanent human habitation, that the sovereignty claims are not recognized by the overwhelming majority of the international community (not to mention the Problem of the overlapping claims, the existence or an unclaimed sector, and the assertion by two states of a basis of claim)
|
From page 309... ...
) , they assert that, among other things, the regime should preserve international peace and security, it should promote and facilitate scientific research and exchange, it should protect the environment, and it should ensure that the fruits of any exploitation of Antarctica's resources be equitably shared by humankind.
|
From page 310... ...
Security Council, where the veto exists; the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which have weighted voting; the International Seabed Authority and various commodity arrangements, where the interests of specific groups-producers, consumers, and other parties most directly affected -- are taken into account. This takes us into the area of "specials rights as distinct from "exclusives rights.
|
From page 311... ...
Here recent developments within the Antarctic Treaty itself, in the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) , and in the minerals negotiations allowing the participation of the NCPS must be welcomed.
|
From page 312... ...
These cannot be resolved either by a simplistic, universalist approach or by an adamant attitude that the ATCPs are better informed. All sides need to exercise forbearance, refrain from casting aspersions on one another's motives, and examine issues with an open mind, in the full knowledge that there are no easy answers to the complex question of how Antarctica might best be governed and managed in the interest of all humankind.
|
From page 313... ...
My question is: How can governments find a forum in which they can, on equal footing, examine in depth the issues raised in the U.N.? I do not believe that it is appropriate simply to ask Malaysia and others to put forward specific proposals to be discussed at some unspecified time in the future, because that could freeze Malaysia into the stated position and she would be unable to negotiate effectively.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.