Means and Methods of Implementation of Antarctic Environmental Regimes and National Environmental Instruments: An Exercise in Comparison
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.
KeywordsEnvironmental Impact Assessment Environmental Regime Antarctic Treaty Annex Versus Consultative Meeting
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.