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:
27. Panel Discussion on Institutions of the the Antarctic Treaty System
27. Panel Discussion on Institutions of the the Antarctic Treaty System
Pages 413-436
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 413... ...
In this context he cited the transition -- once the Antarctic Treaty was concluded -- from individual scientists and scientific societies to government representatives as the major determinants of antarctic developments. Since Sweden was not an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, its government at the time the treaty became effective was not interested in being restricted to nonconsultative status, nor did the Swedish scientific society seek government support to promote its specific interests within the treaty system.
|
From page 414... ...
Moreover, a common heritage regime could be established only by consensus, as had been done in the Law of the Sea conference, and it was clear that this goal could not be achieved with regard to Antarctica from either a political or a legal point of view. He did not believe that the common heritage principle contains any kind of ownershipor management-oriented elements; it is not in itself a regime for exploitation, common ownership, or joint management of resources.
|
From page 415... ...
REMARKS BY ALEXANDRE KISS Kiss elaborated on the background and recent evolution within the international legal system of the ill-defined concept of the Common heritage of mankind, which had arisen a number of times during discussions in the workshop. He noted its appearance in the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Treaty)
|
From page 416... ...
Although these were agreements among a limited number of countries, they could be considered the first expression of what could be called the "common interest of mankind a, In the aim of maintaining freedom of international communications, states parties accepted obligations without any immediate advantage to themselves. Following World War I, the concept of the common interest of mankind found expression in international labor treaties drafted by the International Labor Organization: States accepted obligations to apply certain social rules to their nationals without any compensation other than the belief that other states would be encouraged to act in the same way and thus improve human social conditions worldwide.
|
From page 417... ...
Kiss added that another aspect of the common heritage of mankind was illustrated by the 1972 United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention.
|
From page 418... ...
The common heritage of humankind could be organized according to different legal patterns, but these patterns all share the four criteria identified earlier. In addition to the resources of the deep seabed and those of celestial bodies, other items falling into this category include the geostationarY orbit, the radio spectrum, Antarctica, components of our cultural and natural heritage, and certain wild fauna and flora.
|
From page 419... ...
While he found it doubtful that the basis for territorial claims could be set aside as a historical anachronism, as Zain suggested, nevertheless, even if the claims were set aside, that fact would not impinge on the basic justification and validity of the treaty. He believed that the treaty ~ it_ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ stands on its own, independent ot tne claims ana cnelr validity or lack thereof, so that it is not enough to state that territorial claims are not universally recognized to challenge the validity of the treaty.
|
From page 420... ...
He therefore did not believe that "two-tieredness" could be a disqualifying ground for the legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty. Nor did Sorzano accept that nonuniversality could be used to challenge the legitimacy of the treaty, since there are multiple examples of nonuniversal international institutions, such as the European Economic Community, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
|
From page 421... ...
He also introduced the idea of creating a fund to help developing countries that wished to join the treaty and take part in scientific research. He stated that there is a need to continue and expand scientific cooperation within the ATS and that the interests of the international community require more extensive participation by states in Antarc tic science.
|
From page 422... ...
e a legitimate and sustained interest in REMARKS BY ROLF TROLLE ANDERSEN Andersen likewise stressed the ability of the ATS to adapt, as demonstrated by the invitation in 1983 to the nonconsultative states to attend treaty meetings. He stated that while consultative status requires a concrete demonstration of interest, there are other ways of participating in the system, such as through the newly created observer role.
|
From page 423... ...
Elaborating on the question of the common heritage of humankind, he did not find the principle applicable to Antarctica, inter alla, because (1) there has been human activity in Antarctica for most of the twentieth century, t2)
|
From page 424... ...
The legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty on the basis of its standing under international law, however, was not so much challenged as was the fact that its administration is undemocratic because of the two-tier status of contracting parties and the costs of achieving consultative status. Yet various speakers denied the "exclusivity" charge leveled by Zain, noting both that the Antarctic Treaty is open to accession by any country and that the flexible criteria governing consultative party status allow any adhering state meeting these criteria to qualify for consultative status.
|
From page 425... ...
Whether it is possible to pick and choose among the fundamental elements of the ATS, rejecting the position of the claimant states by applying the common heritage of humankind approach, while assuming that peaceful, international cooperation in scientific research throughout the Antarctic Treaty area will prevail (see Chapter 7)
|
From page 426... ...
The "sacred cow" attitude of the consultative parties that oppose all challenges to the treaty seemed to be a violation of the scientific approach, which was based on questioning the status quo and was enshrined in the purposes of the Antarctic Treaty. While the concept of the common heritage of humankind was deemed appropriate for outer space and the deep seabed, it did not take account of the existing legal situation in Antarctica.
|
From page 427... ...
It was also raised again with respect to non-United Nations-member states, such as the Republic of Korea, a topic addressed in Chapter 6, and with respect to helping developing countries to take part in antarctic scientific research projects and share in their results. This topic encompasses in addition the question asked in Chapters 13 and 14 -- how to institutionalize input from the concerned public in a fruitful manner -- and the possibility noted in Chapters 19-20 of international comment on decisions pursuant to the minerals regime.
|
From page 428... ...
One speaker urged elimination of the "discrimination" against non-United Nations-member states' ability to adhere to the treaty. With respect to participation by developing countries in antarctic science, the point made in the section on Antarctic Science and Chapters 17-20, on the lack of immediacy with respect to any foreseeable benefits from antarctic minerals development and potential sharing of the revenues therefrom, was repeated, emphasizing instead the already extensive benefits derived from scientific and environmental knowledge of Antarctica.
|
From page 429... ...
This topic is on the agenda of the XIII consultative meeting in October, 1985. (See the proposals for a continental conservation strategy for Antarctica and for an environmental protection agency to independently monitor environmental protection policies and compliance with them in Chapters 13 and 14)
|
From page 430... ...
In addition, one participant suggested amending the World Heritage Convention, cited by KISS earlier in the discussion, so that it could apply to the special circumstances in Antarctica created by the status of claims Additional comments were made about the paramount value of scientific research in Antarctica (see and Article IV. section on Antarctic Science)
|
From page 431... ...
Richard Woolcott Woolcott acknowledged that the Malaysian initiative had served a useful purpose in assisting in the further opening up of the ATS and in the production of the comprehensive United Nations study on Antarctica. But he did not agree with the impression left by Malaysia that its proposal for a United Nations special committee had been widely supported among non-treaty states.
|
From page 432... ...
He believed that certain political realities should be taken into account in considering any United Nations involvement with Antarctica, because there is a very broad base of support for the ATS. For instance, the two superpowers, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all the present nuclear powers, six of the seven most populous nations on Earth, and the current chairman of the nonaligned movement are members of the treaty system and oppose institutionalizing the involvement of the United Nations in Antarctica.
|
From page 433... ...
The United Nations is a politicized body, tending toward preoccupation with essentially political conflicts: Arab versus Jew in the Middle East, white versus black in southern Africa, East versus West in a number of areas, and North versus South on economic questions. For instance, Pakistan has criticized the Antarctic Treaty not, in his view, because it has made a considered assessment of its value but probably because India has joined it; similarly, Ghana and some black African countries have attacked the treaty not on the basis of disagreements with its objectives but because South Africa is a member.
|
From page 434... ...
He added that he did not like to see the latter involvement pursued only as a reluctant concession on the part of the consultative parties to the treaty. He supported the development of extensive working relationships with these bodies, by which he meant that Antarctica should be discussed in the governing councils of the relevant specialized agencies; he did not mean simple attendance by an individual from a specialized agency at Antarctic Treaty meetings.
|
From page 435... ...
435 confidence among members of the international community that Antarctica is being managed in their interest and for their benefit. His fundamental questions remained: Who should reconcile differing views on Antarctica, in what forum, and how?
|
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.