Your search

There are at least four ways in which Antarctic colonialism was white: it was paradigmatically performed by white men; it consisted in the taking of vast, white expanses of land; it was carried out with a carte blanche (literally, “blank card”) attitude; and it was presented to the world as a white, innocent adventure. While the first, racial whiteness has been amply problematised, I suggest that the last three illuminate yet other moral wrongs of the Antarctic colonial project. Moreover, they might be constitutive of a larger class of “white” colonialisms beyond the White Continent.

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.

Helt siden Bouvetøya ble norsk biland i 1930 har denne øya langt sør i Atlanterhavet vært del av vår polare identitet og historie. Gjennom tidene har øya likevel ikke vært gjenstand for stor oppmerksomhet. Siden 1930 har det heller ikke vært gitt noen samlet omtale til Stortinget av forhold som angår forvaltningen av dette området. Regjeringen mener det nå er tid for å gjøre Bouvetøya bedre kjent gjennom en melding til Stortinget. Denne meldingen har derfor som mål å beskrive Bouvetøya, og gi en bred fremstilling av ulike forhold når det gjelder rettslige rammebetingelser, forvaltning og aktivitet på øya og i havområdene rundt. Regjeringen fremmer også en melding til Stortinget som omhandler norske interesser og politikk i Antarktis, herunder de norske bilandene Dronning Maud Land og Peter I Øy, heretter omtalt som Antarktismeldingen. 1 Tradisjonelt har de tre bilandene Bouvetøya, Dronning Maud Land og Peter I Øy vært omtalt sammen. Bouvetøya ligger nord for Antarktistraktatens virkeområde, og er ubestridt norsk territorium. Regjeringen har derfor funnet det hensiktsmessig å legge frem en egen melding om norske interesser og politikk for Bouvetøya. Spørsmål som gjelder Bouvetøya håndteres som en integrert del av norsk politikk. Dette inne- bærer å gjøre norsk lovgivning gjeldende for øya i den grad det er hensiktsmessig, og å sørge for at lovgrunnlaget er tilpasset behovene. I denne meldingen om Bouvetøya beskrives intern lovgivning så vel som det folkerettslige rammeverket, og ret- tighetene og pliktene som følger av dette, herunder retten til naturressurser og plikten til å ta vare på miljøet. Det gis en egen omtale av de stats- rettslige sidene ved øya, og av at det vil bli vurdert om disse og andre forhold bør reguleres i en egen lov.

The introduction of non-native species to Antarctica in association with human activities is a major threat to indigenous biodiversity and the region's unique ecosystems, as has been well-demonstrated in other ecosystems globally. Existing legislation contained in the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty does not specifically make the eradication of non-native species mandatory, although it is implicit that human-assisted introductions should not take place. Furthermore, to date, eradications of non-native species in the Treaty area have been infrequent and slow to progress. In 2005 an additional Annex (VI) to the Protocol was agreed concerning “Liability arising from environmental emergencies.” This annex focusses on prevention of environmental emergencies, contingency planning and reclaiming costs incurred when responding to an environmental emergency caused by another operator within the Antarctic Treaty area. However, the types of environmental emergencies covered by the annex are not defined. In this paper we highlight potential difficulties with the application of Annex VI in the context of non-native species control and eradication, including, for example, whether a non-native species introduction would be classified as an “environmental emergency” and therefore be considered under the terms of the annex. Even if this were the case, we conclude that the slow pace of approval of the annex by Antarctic Treaty Parties may prevent it coming into force for many years and, once in force, in its current form it is unlikely to be useful for reclaiming costs associated with the eradication or management of a non-native species.

Within the polar science community the Polar (and Geophysical) Years represent signal events. We often read, largely within geoscience literature, that those events represented positive and dramatic steps forward in international science. From five recent books - two historical compilations and three personal narratives - augmented by interviews with a few key participants, a more cautious picture emerges, of remarkable successes but also of occasional or even persistent missteps and deficiencies. An improved understanding of the IPY concept and experience can provide useful guidance for future polar and global science. Keywords: International Polar Year; International Geophysical Year; international science; history of polar science.

For over 50 years the Antarctic has been governed through the Antarctic Treaty, an international agreement now between 49 nations of whom 28 Consultative Parties (CPs) undertake the management role. Ostensibly, these Parties have qualified for their position on scientific grounds, though diplomacy also plays a major role. This paper uses counts of policy papers and science publications to assess the political and scientific outputs of all CPs over the last 18 years. We show that a subset of the original 12 Treaty signatories, consisting of the seven claimant nations, the USA and Russia, not only set the political agenda for the continent but also provide most of the science, with those CPs producing the most science generally having the greatest political influence. None of the later signatories to the Treaty appear to play a major role in managing Antarctica compared with this group, with half of all CPs collectively producing only 7% of the policy papers. Although acceptance as a CP requires demonstration of a substantial scientific programme, the Treaty has no formal mechanism to review whether a CP continues to meet this criterion. As a first step to addressing this deficiency, we encourage the CPs collectively to resolve to hold regular international peer reviews of their individual science programmes and to make the results available to the other CPs. Keywords: Governance; claimant states; Antarctic policy; scientific publications.

Commemorating a particular anniversary is always an arbitrary affair, an act of whimsy. After all, why acknowledge the 50th anniversary of someone or some event as opposed to the 48th? In terms of birthdays, we tend to celebrate each year as another rite of human passage. However, when it comes to events such as wars and diplomatic encounters, the media and political commentators like more substantial blocks of time: 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 100th anniversaries are particularly noteworthy. The year 2009 has proven no different in terms of representing a temporal marker for the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. In December 2009 a so-called Antarctic Treaty Summit was held in Washington, D.C. to take advantage of not only such a milestone, but also “to highlight lessons learned about international governance ‘with the interests of science and the progress of all mankind’ ” (Antarctic Treaty Summit 2009, emphasis added).