Introduction

The Antarctic Treaty was passed in 1959, following the enormous success of the first ever International Geophysical Year (IPY). It's value and the resulting contentment of all involved parties has led to it becoming one of the most longstanding international treaties in history, boasting an impressive uninterrupted reign over the icy continent for the last 65 years. Over this time it has not only been tolerated, but has also continuously been strengthened and updated to expand environmental and political protections, and adapt to a modern world. Let's take a look at what makes this treaty so special - why it works, and why it can be adapted.

Success Factors of the Antarctic Treaty

One of the Antarctic Treaty's defining features is that it induces all countries to work together, as opposed to forcing them to compete.

For example, in order to pass any new changes or updates to the treaty, consensus from all signatory parties is required. This is an incredibly powerful tool, as it forces collaboration and ensures that everyone's needs are met and concerns are voiced. No country is too eager to change this system, because everyone already feels that their voice is heard, regardless of the wealth and power of their country or the size of their military. In other words, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"; no country is foolish enough to mess around with a system that already benefits them.

Additionally, collaboration is beneficial to all parties due to the lack of available resources and harsh conditions in Antarctica. While some countries put more money into their Antarctic programs than others, everyone mutually benefits from shared bases, information and research, staff, scientific instruments, and much more. All countries recognize the importance and potential of Antarctica from a scientific standpoint, and over time have only come to more strongly agree on the cruciality of preserving it's environment and biosphere. Leaving the sharing of resources and information down to young scientists has also helped to create many lasting international relationships between professionals, which continues to improve connections/communication between nations long after staff are sent home.

Furthermore, the treaty is clear and not overly long or cluttered, stating plainly what kind of motions are possible, and where hard boundaries lie. The clear rules leave no room for loopholes, and therefore parties are less tempted to try and play the system for their own benefit. On top of this, the treaty outlines various specific methods to settle conflict. When conflicts or disagreements do arise, there are adequate roadmaps and rules to resolution that are fair to all parties.

Of course, none of this progress or the continued positive relations would be possible without frequent meetings. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) is an annual conference held in order to review terms, propose/pass new ideas, and share information. It was originally established as a biennial meeting (held every two years) in 1959 as a term of the Antarctic treaty, but since 1994 has been hosted annually due to increasing complexity of operations, responsibilities, and the rising number of parties that want to be included in the ATS.

Above everything else, there is one pivotal rule makes Antarctica so revolutionary (and so hard for socialized human beings to wrap our heads around): territorial claims are strictly forbidden; land is owned by no country, government, or party, and no one can claim possession of terrain (or sea ice, for that matter) anywhere South of 60° latitude. This unique rule and form of governance is a very 'out of the box' concept when compared to the nationalistic political constructs that modern humanity is conditioned to, but is effective in fostering communication and camaraderie.

Any miliary activity in this area is also strictly forbidden both in the treaty, and by common consent.

Shortfalls of the Antarctic Treaty

While it is easy to praise the raging success of the Antarctic Treaty, it is far from perfect. Unfortunately, one of the things that make it so amiable also can create issues for countries attempting to move forward in a positive and productive manner.

You may recall that there is a requirement for consensus on any official decision making within ATCM meetings. This grants power to every party, which can be used for good, but can also be taken advantage of since any objection by a consultative party causes the proposal to fail. With 29 countries acting as consultative parties, it is understandable why making one decision can become so difficult. A single country can halt progress for everyone, making it a painstakingly slow process to accomplish any significant progress. In more recent years, meetings have lead sporadically to stalemates between world powers.

There are many concrete examples of this issue:

• No new Marine Protected Areas have been created since 2016.

• The Liability Annex proposed by the US in 1996 to the Environmental Protocol reached consensus by 2005, however since 9 countries have still not approved it, the Liability Annex still has not been implemented even two decades after consensus was reached.

• As of the last ATCM in May 2024 in India, China (again) prevented Emperor Penguins from protections, and Russia blocked an important resolution from the new High Seas Treaty.

• During Trump's first term as president (2016-2020), the USA opposed any language suggesting the issue of climate change within the Antarctic Treaty system, and due to their refusal to discuss environmental change, very little progress was made on that front.

Relevance to International Affairs

This issue may make the ATS's style seem like a less promising adaptation into larger world politics, but it's not all bad. While it is important to understand wholly the impacts of such a system, we have still seen remarkable success over the last 70 years - much more than current international affairs.

There are setbacks, but all in all, more good has come from the ATS than bad. It is also significant to recall that not only was the ATS inspired by the International Geophysical Year, but it was also largely implemented during the years of the cold war. It was established for science, but took shape as an 'arms control treaty' and peace agreement (a pretty effective one, if I might add).

The community of scientists and diplomats that work together experience a sense of cohesion that this kind of close proximity and consensus provides. While it can cause issues, there are ways to improve the efficacy of this type of system:

• Putting diplomatic efforts in outside of ATCM.

  • For example, to gain favor for a large MPA in the Ross Sea, the US and New Zealand, over 5 years, sent expert teams to other countries, took advantage of diplomatic channels, and government contacts in order to diplomatically nudge the progression of the MPA – which worked.

• With the power of consensus comes the responsibility to work towards common goals. Countries being added as consultative parties need to show that they acknowledge this.

• Countries can still take action where they have the opportunity to, even where actions may be blocked by consensus. If enough countries make these decisions unilaterally and individually,  a large difference can still be made.

  • For example, the US lists Emperor Penguins as a protected species even though China has repeatedly blocked the action at ATCM meetings.

Adapting a mindset that opposes traditional concepts of land ownership, starting with small, uninhabited areas, could be a gradual and deliberate process that prioritizes mutual agreement among participating countries. Such an approach would require cooperation and maturity from world leaders and a more consensus/collaboration-driven mindset, but is not impossible. Rather than envisioning a uniform global culture, the goal would be to foster a mindset that challenges estranging/divisive norms of possession while still respecting heritage and cultural identity. Language, traditions, and the sharing of cultural practices (when done voluntarily, of course) can serve as powerful tools for building stronger connections between nations, based on respect rather than fear. We have over half a century of proof that successful international collaboration and cultural exchange is possible. Building on these foundations, it's achievable to explore new ways of thinking about land and community on a global scale.

Sources

Bloom, Evan. “The Continuing Value of Consensus-Based Decision-Making in the Antarctic Treaty System.” Wilson Center, The Wilson Center, 17 Oct. 2024, www.wilsoncenter.org/article/continuing-value-consensus-based-decision-making-antarctic-treaty-system.

British Antarctic Survey. “The Antarctic Treaty Explained.” Bas.ac.uk, NARC BAS, 2015, www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-explained/.

Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. “ATCM and Other Meetings.” Www.ats.aq, Antarctic Treaty System, www.ats.aq/e/atcm.html.