| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
185848
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
All appears quiet on Australia’s southern front – Antarctica. The continent remains a beacon of cooperation, home to a continued system of international governance and scientific engagement, lauded as a political win from the depths of the Cold War. Beneath the surface, however, this article argues that strategic competition is now building. In Antarctica, this competition takes the form of gray zone activities. This article argues that the proliferation of gray zone challenges could jeopardize the future of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). This article analyses gray zone activity in Antarctica and highlights the growing complexity Australia faces, as Canberra pursues the dual objectives of protecting Australia’s territorial claim to the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) and bolstering the ATS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
073366
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Australia has had a long connection with, and significant national interests in, the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. The Australian Antarctic Territory comprises 42 per cent of Antarctica's landmass. Australia is not only a claimant state and original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty but has played a significant role in the development of what is termed the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). This article aims to provide an overview of Australia's key policy interests and government policy goals towards Antarctica, including its commitment to the ATS. In examining key policy objectives we note that despite continuity and development of these objectives, significant changes and challenges have arisen in the period 1984-2006. It is these challenges that will help frame Australia's Antarctic agenda over the next 20 years and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
144320
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The governance of Antarctica has re-emerged as a geopolitical issue in the past decade due to the increased presence of China, India and Russia; the continent's importance in understanding global climate change; and its economic potential as a source of marine, genetic and mineral resources. This article examines the challenges for the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) in this context and the consequences for Australia's foreign policy in its dual role as both a territorial claimant and supporter of ATS norms of cooperative science and environmental protection. The central argument is that Antarctic ‘bifocalism’ is under pressure as increased commercial activity and problematic jurisdictional interfaces with other regimes create difficult regulatory challenges for the ATS and encourage assertions of sovereignty that cannot be resolved within the existing regime. Consequently, the author argues that it is vitally important for Australia to preserve the legitimacy of the ATS through a policy framework of ‘strategic denial’ that aims to prevent all states from acquiring sovereignty over Antarctic territory. Australia should therefore reject recent proposals to securitise Antarctic policy or pursue World Heritage listing because they involve assertions of sovereignty that risk fracturing the ATS and thus compromise Australia's enduring interest in keeping Antarctica as ‘a continent of international cooperation and peace’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
173424
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article revisits marine bioprospecting in the Southern Ocean in the context of the efforts to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. After briefly introducing the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), this article examines the extent to which the ILBI will likely spatially overlap with the ATS. As the next step, it is highlighted that future provisions on marine genetic resources (MGRs) in the ILBI might substantively differ from the way the ATS currently regulates bioprospecting. Based on that, the final section reflects on how the ILBI will normatively and institutionally relate to the ATS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|