ANTARCTIC TREATY (1959) Article III [International Cooperation]

In order to promote international cooperation in scientific investigation in Antarctica, as provided for in

Article II ofthe present Treaty, the Contracting Parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable:

a. information regarding plans for scientific programs in Antarctica shall be ex-changed to permit maximum economy of the efficiency of operations;

b.scientific personnel shall be exchanged in Antarctica between expeditions and stations:

c. scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available.

2. In implementing this Article, eveiy encouragement shall be given to the establishment of cooperative working relations with those Specialized Agencies of the United Nations and other international organizations having a scientific or technical interest in Antarctica.

FIGURE 2.4 (a) A hierarchical display of Antarctic Treaty documents that have been organized by their year of adoption (only shown from 1959 to 1979) based on the search criterion of ''scientific.'' This and other collapsible-expandable displays can be generated by the Antarctic Treaty Searchable Database: 1959-1999, which is available on the CD-ROM. Expansion (by clicking the +) and collapse (by clicking the —) of the hierarchical displays can be used to interpret specific Antarctic policies and relationships among legal concepts that have been developed continuously by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties from 1959 through 1999. (b) The Antarctic Treaty Searchable Database: 1959 -1999 will identify relevant documents with the user-defined search criteria, which can be read and printed, as illustrated for the search criterion of ''scientific'' in Article III of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.

Since 1961, when the 1959 Antarctic Treaty was formally ratified, the Antarctic Treaty nations have been obligated to meet at ''suitable intervals'' (Antarctic Treaty, Article IX) for the purpose of

. . . exchanging information, consulting together on the matters of common interest pertaining to Antarctica, and formulating and considering and recommending to their Governments, measures in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the Treaty.. . .

This process of exchanging information, consulting together on matters of common interest, and then formulating, considering, and recommending measures is inherent in decision-making activities.

Information is exchanged and considered at ATCM through plenary sessions, working group sessions, special sessions, and informal negotiations, which may be open or closed to the public and press. Plenary sessions are the principal forums for delegates to share ideas about the implications and interpretations of specific proposals and their relevant alternatives. If agreements on recommendations cannot be reached in the plenary sessions, the delegations often create common-principle platforms that will promote future negotiations.

Prior to most ATCMs, preparatory meetings have occurred in which agreements about agenda items and other factors to expedite effective discussions were negotiated. Circulation of working papers and other forms of communication further facilitate exchanges among the Antarctic Treaty nations. All of the preparatory activities enhance contact among delegations while reducing the risk of surprises that detract from the negotiations through confusion and loss of time.

Through this consultative process, nations consider legal applications of the Antarctic Treaty in view of current world events and perspectives. However, it is the process itself that has been important—bringing the nations together at regular and frequent intervals to work together in resolving issues for the mutual benefit of all concerned. Moreover, common interests considered at the ATCM are general enough to be extended to virtually any decision-making system where scientific, economic, and policy perspectives are involved—from global to local levels (Box 2.1).

The ATCM process also is an ideal negotiating forum that can be modeled in classroom situations to explore creative solutions for mitigating human impacts in our world. For example, in the Antarctic Marine Ecology and Policy capstone course, which has been taught since 1982 (see the Preface), ''student ambassadors'' represent different Antarctic Treaty nations. As in the ATS, each student ambassador creates a concise recommendation (using actual formats) to resolve a specific human impact of his or her choosing within any category of Earth system policies (Box 2.1). Specific questions are iterated, leading progressively to a synthesis of ideas, logic, and background materials.

• What is the problem/impact that you have identified, and how does it relate to the associated ecosystem(s)? What are the temporal and spatial magnitudes of the problem/impact?

box 2.1 ''common'' environmental interests in antarctica and throughout the earth system

(1) Area Protection (e.g., Special Sites of Scientific Interest, Specially Protected Areas, Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Multiple-Use Planning Areas, Areas of Special Tourist Interest)

(2) Environmental Assessment (e.g., baselines, monitoring, or inspection)

(3) Legal Status (e.g., claimant or nonclaimant, acceding or consultative nation, nongovernmental organization or industry)

(4) Living Resources (e.g., krill fish, seals, whales, lakes, or marine and terrestrial ecosystems)

(5) Non-Living Resources (e.g., oil and gas, ice, or minerals)

(6) Pollution Control (e.g., retrograde, recycling, remediation, or restriction)

(7) Population Control (e.g., tourism, proliferation of stations in accessible areas)

• Why is the problem/impact important to resolve? What are the anticipated benefits from resolving the problem/impact and anticipated consequences from not resolving the problem/impact?

• What efforts have been made to mitigate the problem/impact? What types of legal documents have been previously developed to solve the problem/ impact?

• What solution(s) are you recommending? What types of information or procedures will be required to implement the solution to the problem/ impact?

• What groups (nations and other interested parties) will be involved in negotiating your recommendation and how could their influence be enhanced?

• Is your recommendation feasible and clearly defined?

At the end of the course, the student-ambassadors then convene a Mock ATCM in which they formally debate and resolve their recommendations—often producing practical solutions for ''real-world'' issues (Box 2.2). Analogous group decision-making forums can be modeled at all jurisdictional levels—from local institutions (such as county commissions or state legislatures) through international conventions.

How can everyday observations be developed into meaningful questions about the world we live in?

box 2.2 ''student-ambassador'' recommendation from the antarctic marine ecology and policy capstone course for undergraduates at the ohio state universitya

Iceberg Utilization for Water and Energy

Joshua M. Ryland Department of Zoology Student-Ambassador from Guatemala

The Representatives:

Recalling Recommendations IX-1, X-1, Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora (AGREED MEASURES), Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty;

Recognizing that the Antarctic Treaty System is void of any regime which regulates the utilization of Antarctic icebergs;

Believing that the unique nature of icebergs as non-living, renewable resources warrants their distinction from all other Antarctic mineral resources:

Considering that the annual pure water yield of Antarctic icebergs will increase the world water supply by 25% and iceberg driven power plants will increase current energy output by 370%;

Recommend to their governments that:

Icebergs be considered non-mineral, thus, exempt from all mineral regimes and moratoriums on mineral usage, to enable the utilization of icebergs for the benefit of all mankind, in accordance with following provisions;

[i] The development of scientifically sounds methods of iceberg cleavage and transport which have no detrimental effect on the Antarctic marine ecosystem;

[ii] All iceberg harvests occur beyond the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone, and provisions for assessing liability in the event of an accident have been formulated;

[iii] All parties harvesting ice must be granted a permit in the manner established in the AGREED MEASURES and such permits will be granted yearly by the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) only after each petitioning party demonstrates their activities will have no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic marine ecosystem, the transport zone ecosystems, and destination zone ecosystem;

[iv] The CEP will monitor the permits granted so that the annual amount of iceberg resources harvested will never exceed the amount calved each year.

a This project was completed during a 10-week quarter and was published along with other student papers in Berkman (1997a).

Continuously consulting on matters of common interest, as in the Antarctic Treaty system, enables individuals to share insights and build on what they already understand. Such group decision-making activities also offer valuable lessons about conceiving, designing, and implementing self-directed projects (Boxes 2.1 and 2.2). From educational institutions outward to society, group decision-making activities provide an effective formula for learning about the interdisciplinary nature of the Earth system and humankind (Fig. 2.5).

Interdisciplinary inquiry propels individuals toward understanding the complexity of our increasingly scientific and technological world. Like Rumpelstilt-skin, the magic is turning observations into questions that illuminate answers that become new questions in an ever-growing cascade of insight.

Group Decision Making

Specific Problem or Question +

Continuous Solution Refinement +

Relevant Negotiating Forum Effective Educational Experience

FIGURE 2.5 A group decision-making approach for integrating scientific, economic, governmental, and social perspectives into courses about our society and world. Simulating forums, such as the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, enables students to creatively explore and design strategies for resolving human impacts in the Earth system from global to local levels (Box 2.2).

This Page Intentionally Left Blank i i

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment