Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T04:28:37.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The settlement of disputes under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Martijn Wilder
Martijn Wilder
Affiliation:
Jesus College, Jesus Lane, Cambridge CB5 8BL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the Antarctic Treaty came into operation, Antarctic affairs have been characterised by international cooperation. The major issues of potential conflict, namely sovereignty, military activity, and mining, have now been largely removed. As a result, the remaining disagreements between parties have been resolved through consultation and negotiation. No dispute has ever found its way to judicial settlement, with most disagreements usually resolved at an early stage through ATCMs. While there is no reason to suspect that the use of consultation and negotiation will not continue, with the introduction of far more comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment, combined with the significant increase in activity in and around the continent, there is a greater likelihood of situations occurring that clearly breach these principles or give rise to a dispute. In addition, where extensive damage to the environment has already occurred, negotiation may be limited, so that the other mechanisms for settling disputes must be instituted. The dispute procedures of the Protocol, taken almost entirely from CRAMRA, represent the most comprehensive system for the peaceful settlement of disputes arising in any Antarctic instrument to date. However, clear problems such as remedies, enforcement, and uncertainties with respect to standing and liability remain. Until these problems are resolved, all aspects of all disputes cannot be covered, and comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment specified in the Protocol will remain an objective, not a reality.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 31 , Issue 179 , October 1995 , pp. 399 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Angelini, J., and Mansfield, A.. 1993. Implementation of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty into United States law and practice. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California.Google Scholar
Argentina. 1993. Final report of the Argentine government: oil removal from Bahia Paraiso, Antarctica, December 92–January 93. Buenos Aires: Government of Argentina.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1959. The Antarctic Treaty. As done at Washington on 1 December 1959. Reproduced in: Bush, W. (editor). 1982. Antarctica and international law: a collection of inter-state and national documents. New York: Oceana: 1, 46–107.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1980. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Reproduced in: Bush, W. (editor). 1982. Antarctica and international law: a collection of inter-state and national documents. New York: Oceana: 1, 398–430.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1988. Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities – Final report of the IVth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources. Wellington.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1992. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty – Final report of the Eleventh Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting, Madrid, 22–30 April 1991; 17–22 June 1991; 3–4 October 1991. Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores.Google Scholar
Australia. 1992. Australian law in Antarctica. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Canberra: Government of Australia (Parliamentary Paper 252 of 1992).Google Scholar
Barnes, J.N. 1988. Legal aspects of environmental protection in Antarctica. In: Joyner, C.C., and Chopra, S.K. (editors). The Antarctic legal regime. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Bilder, R.B. 1975. The settlement of disputes in the field of international law of the environment. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Académie de Droit International 144 (1): 139–240.Google Scholar
Birnie, P.W., and Boyle, A.E.. 1992. International law and the environment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bosco, G. 1987. Settlement of disputes under the Antarctic Treaty. In: Francioni, F., and Scovazzi, T. (editors). International law for Antarctica. Milan: Giuffrè Publishing: 23–26.Google Scholar
Crawford, J., and Rothwell, D.R.. 1992. Legal issues confronting Australia's Antarctica1. Paper presented at Supreme and Federal Court Judges Conference, Canberra, 01 1992.Google Scholar
Francioni, F. (editor). 1992. International environmental law for Antarctica. Milan: Giuffrè Publishing.Google Scholar
Handmer, J., and Wilder, M. (editors). 1993. Towards a conservation strategy for the Australian Antarctic Territory. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Heap, J.A. 1993. Cooperation in the Antarctic: a quarter of a century's experience. In: Orrega Vicuña, F. (editor). Antarctic resources policy: scientific, legal and political issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 103–110.Google Scholar
International Court of Justice. 1962. Judgement: South West Africa cases. ICJ Reports.Google Scholar
Jorgensen-Dahl, A., and østreng, W.. 1981. The Antarctic Treaty System in world politics. London: Macmillan, in association with Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
Joyner, C. 1989. The evolving Antarctic legal regime: Book review of F. Orrego Vicuña, Antarctic mineral exploitation: the emerging legal framework. American Journal of International Law 83: 605–626.Google Scholar
Kaye, S., and Rothwell, D.. 1993. Australian law in Antarctica. Polar Record 29 (170): 215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefeber, R. 1990. The exercise of jurisdiction in the Antarctic region and the changing structure of international law: the international community and international interests. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 21: 81–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, S. 1985. International wildlife law. Cambridge: Grotius Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrills, J.G. 1991. International dispute settlement. Cambridge: Grotius Publishing.Google Scholar
Orrego Vicuña, F. 1988. Antarctic mineral exploitation: the emerging legal framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Permanent Court of International Justice. 1924. Judgement: Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Jurisdiction) Case (Greece v UK). PCIJ, Series A, No. 2.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D. 1989. Mineral resource activities: article by article commentary prepared by members of the UK delegation. London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office.Google Scholar
Sands, P. 1989. The environment community and international law. Harvard International Law Journal 30: 393–420.Google Scholar
Simma, B. 1986. The Antarctic Treaty as a treaty providing for an ‘objective regime.’ Cornell International Law Journal 19 (2): 189–209.Google Scholar
Triggs, G. (editor). 1987. The Antarctic Treaty regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom. 1994. Antarctic Bill (UK).Google Scholar
United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1969. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [The Vienna Convention]. UN Document A/ Conf. 39/27.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1972. Declaration on the Human Environment [The Stockholm Declaration]. UN Document A/ Conf. 48/14.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1986a. United Nations General Assembly Records 41st Session. Comments made by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir, 51st Meeting 1st Committee, 29 11 1986, A41/C1/PV49.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1986b. United Nations General Assembly Records 41st Session. Comments made by R. Woolcott, 51st Meeting 1st Committee, 29 11 1986, A41/C1/PV51: 14–15.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1992. Declaration on Environment and Development [The Rio Declaration]. UN Document A/ Conf. 151/PC/WG.III/L33/Rev.1.Google Scholar
Watts, A. 1992. International law and the Antarctic Treaty System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilder, M. 1993. Liability on ice: environmental damage and the Antarctic Madrid Protocol. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R. 1991. The Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: an attempt to break new ground. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar