Advertisement

Voicing Bipolar Futures: The Antarctic Treaty System and Arctic Governance in Historical Perspective

  • Lize-Marié van der Watt
  • Peder Roberts
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology book series (PSHST)

Abstract

The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 has long been held up as a model for enlightened governance of an international space. This chapter asks how and why the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) regularly has been presented as inspiration for potential future Arctic governance regimes during the past half-century. We examine how legal regimes are freighted with temporally specific values (including geopolitical assumptions); and how the outcomes deemed most valuable may be achieved without replication of the specific legal framework. We begin by tracing how the origins of the ATS have been systematically described as exceptional to rather than exemplary of late 1950s Cold War geopolitics. We then consider how and why particular actors invoked the ATS in discussions of multilateral Arctic governance through the 1970s and 1980s. Finally, we discuss how the ATS has been proposed as a solution during the most recent narrative of crisis in the Arctic.

Keywords

Antarctic Treaty System Cold war Geopolitics Governance Arctic 

References

  1. Antonello, Alessandro. “Nature Conservation and Antarctic Diplomacy, 1959–1964.” The Polar Journal 4, no. 2 (3 July 2014): 335–353.Google Scholar
  2. Arctic Ocean Conference. “The Ilulissat Declaration. Arctic Ocean Conference, Ilulissat Greenland 27–28 May 2008,” 2008. http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf.
  3. Armstrong, Terence E., George William Rogers, and Graham Rowley. The Circumpolar North: A Political and Economic Geography of the Arctic and Sub-Arctic. London: Methuen, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. Aronova, Elena. “Geophysical Datascapes of the Cold War: Politics and Practices of the World Data Centers in the 1950s and 1960s.” Osiris 32 (2017): 307–327.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Peter. “Entering the Age of the Polar Regions: The Arctic and Antarctic Are No Longer Poles Apart.” AMBIO 18, no. 1 (1989): 92–94.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, Peter. The International Politics of Antarctica. London: Croom Helm, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. Berkman, Paul Arthur. Science into Policy: Global Lessons from Antarctica. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. “Antarctica Is a Good Example That Science Can Unite the World, Researcher’s Book Says.” Ohio State Research News, 2001. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/antarctic.htm.
  9. Bloomfield, Lincoln P. “The Arctic: Last Unmanaged Frontier.” Foreign Affairs 60, no. 1 (1981): 87–105.Google Scholar
  10. Bodenhorn, Barbara. “The Animals Come to Me; They Know I Share: Inupiaq Kinship, Changing Economic Relations and Enduring World Views on Alaska’s North Slope.” PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. Bones, Stian. “SCAR as a Healing Process? Reflections on Science and Polar Politics in the Cold War and beyond—The Case of Norway.” In Antarctica and the Humanities, edited by Peder Roberts, Lize-Marié van der Watt, and Adrian Howkins, 231–249. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Google Scholar
  12. Borgerson, Scott. “An Ice Cold War.” The New York Times, August 8, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Borgerson, Scott. “The Great Game Moves North.” Foreign Affairs, January 8, 2014.Google Scholar
  14. Brabant, Malcolm. “Inuit Hunters’ Plea to the EU: Lift Ban Seal Cull or Our Lifestyle Will Be Doomed.” The Guardian, May 16, 2015.Google Scholar
  15. Breum, Martin. Når isen forsvinder: Danmark som stormagt i Arktis, Grønlands rigdomme og kampen om nordpolen. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2011.Google Scholar
  16. Brewster, Murray. “Russia’s New Claim to North Pole Puts Pressure on Canada, Expert Says.” The Globe and Mail, August 4, 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Brooks, Cassandra M., Larry B. Crowder, Lisa M. Curran, Robert B. Dunbar, David G. Ainley, Klaus J. Dodds, Kristina M. Gjerde, and U. Rashid Sumaila. “Science-Based Management in Decline in the Southern Ocean.” Science 354, no. 6309 (14 October 2016): 185–187.Google Scholar
  18. Bulkeley, Rip. “The Political Origins of the Antarctic Treaty.” Polar Record 46, no. 1 (January 2010): 9–11.Google Scholar
  19. Chaturvedi, Sanjay. The Polar Regions: A Political Geography. Chichester and New York: Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. Chown, Steven L. “Antarctic Treaty System Past Not Predictive.” Science 339, no. 6116 (11 January 2013): 141.Google Scholar
  21. Christensen, Miyase, Annika E. Nilsson, and Nina Wormbs. “Globalization, Climate Change and the Media: An Introduction.” In Media and the Politics of Arctic Climate Change: When the Ice Breaks, edited by Miyase Christensen, Annika E. Nilsson, and Nina Wormbs, 1–25. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.Google Scholar
  22. Corell, Robert, ed. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Dodds, Klaus. “Assault on the Unknown: Geopolitics, Antarctic Science, and the International Geophysical Year (1957–8).” In New Spaces of Exploration: Geographies of Discovery in the Twentieth Century, edited by Simon Naylor and James R. Ryan, 148–172. London: Tauris, 2010.Google Scholar
  24. Dodds, Klaus, and Mark Nuttall. The Scramble for the Poles: The Geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  25. Doel, Ronald E. “Constituting the Postwar Earth Sciences: The Military’s Influence on the Environmental Sciences in the USA After 1945.” Social Studies of Science 33, no. 5 (1 October 2003): 635–666.Google Scholar
  26. Elzinga, Aant. “Antarctica: The Construction of a Continent by and for Science.” In Denationalizing Science, edited by Elisabeth Crawford, Terry Shinn, and Sverker Sörlin, 73–106. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. Elzinga, Aant. “Through the Lens of the Polar Years: Changing Characteristics of Polar Research in Historical Perspective.” Polar Record 45, no. 4 (October 2009): 313–336.Google Scholar
  28. European Parliament. “Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance.” October 9, 2008. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2008-0474&language=EN.
  29. Guardian Environment Blogs. “Plan to Create Massive Antarctic Ocean Sanctuaries Blocked by Surprise Challenge from Russia and Ukraine.” The Guardian, July 17, 2013.Google Scholar
  30. Hamblin, Jacob Darwin. Oceanographers and the Cold War: Disciples of Marine Science. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  31. Hamblin, Jacob Darwin. “Mastery of Landscapes and Seascapes. Science at the Strategic Poles during the International Geophysical Year.” In Extremes: Oceanography’s Adventures at the Poles, edited by Keith Rodney Benson and Helen M. Rozwadowski, 201–225. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications/USA, 2007.Google Scholar
  32. Hamblin, Jacob Darwin. Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  33. Howkins, Adrian. “Science, Environment, and Sovereignty: The International Geophysical Year in the Antarctic Peninsula Region.” In Globalizing Polar Science: Reconsidering the International Polar and Geophysical Years, edited by Roger D. Launius, James Rodger Fleming, and David H. DeVorkin, 245–264. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.Google Scholar
  34. Howkins, Adrian. The Polar Regions: An Environmental History. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity, 2015.Google Scholar
  35. Howkins, Adrian. Frozen Empires: An Environmental History of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  36. HSH the Prince Albert of Monaco. “Speech. 50th Anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty. Science-Policy Interactions in International Governance. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.” November 30, 2009. http://www.fpa2.com/downloads/Washington_Antarctic_en.pdf.
  37. ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for IPY 2007–2008. “The Scope of Science for the International Polar Year 2007–2008.” Geneva, 2007. http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/ipy-science-plan/IPY-Science-Plan.pdf.
  38. Jacobsson, Marie. “Building the International Legal Framework for Antarctica.” In Science Diplomacy: Science, Antarctica, and the Governance of International Spaces, edited by Paul Berkman, Michael A. Lang, David Walton, and Oran Young, 1–16. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  39. Klare, Michael T. “Rushing for the Arctic’s Riches.” The New York Times, December 7, 2013.Google Scholar
  40. Koivurova, Timo, and Erik Molenaar. International Governance and Regulation of the Marine Arctic: Overview and Gap Analysis. Oslo: WWF International Arctic Programme, 2009.Google Scholar
  41. Krige, John. American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  42. Kriwoken, Lorne, Laurence Cordonnery, and Alan D. Hemmings. “Nexus and Imbroglio: CCAMLR, the Madrid Protocol and Designating Antarctic Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean.” The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 30, no. 4 (23 November 2015): 727–764.Google Scholar
  43. Launius, Roger D., James Rodger Fleming, and David H. DeVorkin, eds. Globalizing Polar Science: Reconsidering the International Polar and Geophysical Years. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.Google Scholar
  44. Nowlan, Linda. “Arctic Legal Regime for Environmental Protection.” IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44. The World Conservation Union, 2001.Google Scholar
  45. Oreskes, Naomi, and John Krige, eds. Science and Technology in the Global Cold War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  46. Powell, Richard C. and Klaus Dodds, eds. Polar Geopolitics? Knowledges, Resources and Legal Regimes. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2014.Google Scholar
  47. Raspotnik, Andreas. The European Union and the Geopolitics of the Arctic. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, Peder, Klaus Dodds, and Lize-Marié van der Watt. “‘But Why Do You Go There?’ Norway and South Africa in the Antarctic during the 1950s.” In Science, Geopolitics and Culture in the Polar Region: Norden Beyond Borders, edited by Sverker Sörlin, 79–110. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.Google Scholar
  49. Rogne, Odd, Volker Rachold, Louwrens Hacquebord, and Bob Corell. 25 Years of International Arctic Research Cooperation: IASC after 25 Years. Potsdam: International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), 2015.Google Scholar
  50. Sauven, John. “Saving the Arctic Is Environmentalism’s Biggest Challenge yet.” The Guardian, August 24, 2012.Google Scholar
  51. Scott, Karen N. “Ice and Mineral Resources.” In Exploring the Last Continent: An Introduction to Antarctica, edited by Daniela Liggett, Bryan Storey, Yvonne Cook, and Veronika Meduna, 487–504. Basel: Springer International Publishing, 2015.Google Scholar
  52. Shadian, Jessica. The Politics of Arctic Sovereignty: Oil, Ice and Inuit Governance. London and New York: Routledge, 2014.Google Scholar
  53. Shaw, Justine D, Aleks Terauds, Martin J. Riddle, Hugh P. Possingham, and Steven L. Chown. “Antarctica’s Protected Areas Are Inadequate, Unrepresentative, and at Risk.” PLoS Biology 12, no. 6 (17 June 2014).Google Scholar
  54. Stavridis, James. “Lessons from the White Continent.” Foreign Policy, February 23, 2015.Google Scholar
  55. Steiner, Richard. “The Arctic’s Big Year—Save It Now or Be Sorry Later.” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 2015.Google Scholar
  56. Suarez, Suzette V. “Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.” In Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, edited by Armin von Bogdandy and Rüdiger Wolfrum, 131–168. Vol. 14. Leiden: Brill 2010.Google Scholar
  57. The Editorial Board. “Giving Up on Antarctica.” The New York Times, September 16, 2013.Google Scholar
  58. Turchetti, Simone, and Peder Roberts, eds. The Surveillance Imperative: Geosciences During the Cold War and Beyond. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.Google Scholar
  59. United Nations. Submissions, Through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, pursuant to Article 76, Paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm.
  60. van der Watt, Lize-Marié. “Return to Gondwanaland: South Africa, Antarctica, Minerals and Apartheid.” The Polar Journal 3, no. 1 (1 June 2013): 72–93.Google Scholar
  61. van der Watt, Lize-Marié, Peder Roberts, and Julia Lajus. “Institutions and the Changing Nature of Arctic Research During the Early Cold War.” In press.Google Scholar
  62. van der Watt, Susanna M.E. “Out in the Cold: Science and the Environment in South Africa’s Involvement in the Sub-Antarctic and Antarctic in the Twentieth Century.” PhD thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 2012.Google Scholar
  63. Wegge, Njord. “The EU and the Arctic: European Foreign Policy in the Making.” Arctic Review on Law and Politics 3, no. 1 (2012): 6–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lize-Marié van der Watt
    • 1
  • Peder Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations