... a treaty ensuring the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes only and the continuance of international harmony in Antarctica will further the purposes and principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
This central premise of using Antarctica for ''peaceful purposes only'' was reinforced in Article I, which expressly prohibited ''any measures of a military nature.'' Moreover, these peaceful activities precluded the establishment of ''military bases and fortifications'' as well as ''carrying out of military maneuvers'' or
''testing of any type of weapons.'' ''Military personnel or equipment,'' however, could be used for ''scientific research or any other peaceful purpose.''
Similarly, Article II fosters the ''freedom of scientific investigation'' that was originally identified in the Preamble. Article III further promotes ''international cooperation in scientific investigation'' through information and personnel exchanges ''to permit the maximum economy and efficiency of operations.'' In implementing this article, every encouragement would 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.'' Although the role of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) was contemplated in Article III, it was not until the first Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in 1961 that the advisory role of SCAR was specifically identified. This marriage between the policy-making framework of the Antarctic Treaty and the advisory role of SCAR effectively established an open international system for managing human activities in the Antarctic region (Fig. 5.1).
Conversely, it also was necessary to prevent Antarctica from becoming the ''scene or object of international discord.'' In this light, Article IV created an innovative strategy for holding all of the claimant issues in abeyance ''while the present Treaty is in force.'' Nothing in the treaty would be interpreted as a renunciation of ''previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty.'' Moreover, the position of nations would not be prejudiced by their ''recognition
Was this article helpful?