Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T15:31:22.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legitimacy in Antarctic governance: The stewardship model

Part of: 60th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2020

Nils Vanstappen Open the ORCID record for Nils Vanstappen [Opens in a new window]
Nils Vanstappen*
Affiliation:
Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies (KU Leuven), Charles Deberiotstraat 34, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
*
Author for correspondence: nils.vanstappen@telenet.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The international community’s interest in the governance of Antarctica has long been recognised. Consideration of this interest has even been one of the pillars of the Antarctic Treaty System’s legitimacy. The Antarctic Treaty, for example, famously claims to serve “the interest of all mankind.” Yet, exactly how the international community is given a voice in Antarctic deliberations remains unclear. This contribution argues that – with the idea of direct United Nations involvement having been squarely rejected – stewardship could best describe the existing governance model as well as offer a normative framework to assess the system’s legitimacy.

Keywords

StewardshipAntarctic Treaty SystemLegitimacyAuthority
Type
Commentary
Information
Polar Record , Volume 55 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 358 - 360
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aumond, F. (2009). La ‘convergence antarctique’: Radioscopie de l’actuel consensus concernant la gestion du continent blanc. Journal du Droit International, (4).Google Scholar
Barritt, E. (2014). Conceptualising stewardship in environmental law. Journal of Environmental Law, 26(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastmeijer, C. J. (2011). Intergenerational equity and the Antarctic Treaty System: Continued efforts to prevent ‘mastery’. Yearbook of Polar Law, 3, 635–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, P. J. (2017). Antarctica and the United Nations. In Dodds, K. J., Hemmings, A. D., & Peder, R. (Eds.), Handbook on the Politics of Antarctica (pp. 255–268). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, P. A. (2010). Common interests in the international space of Antarctica. Polar Record, 46(1), 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chopra, S. K. (1991). Antarctica: Some ethical and legal questions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 475–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, J. (1997). The role of the United Nations in dealing with global problems. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 4(2), 277–296.Google Scholar
French, D. (2012). Regime integrity qua Antarctic security: Embedding global principles and universal values with the Antarctic Treaty System. In Hemmings, A. D., Rothwell, D. R., & Scott, K. N. (Eds.), Antarctic security in the twenty-first century: Legal and policy perspectives (pp. 51–69). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A. D. (2014). Re-justifying the Antarctic Treaty System for the 21st century: Rights, expectations and global equity. In Powell, R. & Dodds, K., Polar Geopolitics: Knowledges, Resources and Legal Regimes (pp. 55–73). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, S. (2019). Development of Malaysia’s position in Antarctica: 1983 to 2017. The Polar Journal, 9(1), 214–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2006). From apology to utopia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, E. J. (2000). The concept of ‘real interest’ and other aspects of co-operation through regional fisheries management mechanisms. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 15(4), 475–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, M. C. W. (1978). The international community and Antarctica. University of Miami Law Review, 33, 475–487.Google Scholar
Saul, B., & Stephens, T. (Eds.). (2015). Antarctica in international law. London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Vidas, D. (1993). Antarctic tourism: A challenge to the legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System. German Yearbook of International Law, 36, 187–224.Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R. (2017). Common interest and common heritage in Antarctica. In Dodds, K. J., Hemmings, A. D., & Peder, R. (Eds.), Handbook on the politics of Antarctica (pp. 142–151). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar