Means and Methods of Implementation of Antarctic Environmental Regimes and National Environmental Instruments: An Exercise in Comparison

  • William Bush
Part of the Environment & Policy book series (ENPO, volume 28)


Dr. Johnson remarked of a dog walking on its hind legs, ‘It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all’. Wonderment about the environmental regimes of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) depends on what one compares them to. The practice has been to compare them with other international regimes of, say, a regional environmental nature — and wonder. There is good reason to do so. No other regional environmental regime occupies a position akin to that of ATS with regard to the vastness of the region governed or the breadth and detail of the region’s environmental regulation — regulation established under the Antarctic Treaty1 and its Environmental Protocol2, the Seals Convention3 and CCAMLR4, as well as conservation measures adopted by the Commission established under CCAMLR. Pride in that achievement can slip into complacency. As an antidote to that possibility, this chapter suggests that an instructive comparison would be what a state might be expected to do within its own undisputed sphere of competence. Justified wonderment that environmental management by a collection of states has worked at all should not blind one to the standards expected of national environmental management.


Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Regime Antarctic Treaty Annex Versus Consultative Meeting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Bush

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations