Can a change to the Antarctic Treaty usher in a new international system?

By: Ricardo Israel - 16/06/2024

Information emerged from Russia that that country would have found important oil reserves in Antarctica, which is not new, since it has always been known that that continent is an immense reserve of fuel and minerals. The concern came from another side, since the indicated place corresponds to a territory claimed by both the United Kingdom and Argentina and Chile.

The international debate began after the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons reported that the discovery in the Wedell Sea was made by the Russian research vessel “Alexander Karpinsky”. The reserves would be fabulous, since they would exceed 511 billion barrels of oil, that is, double the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia or a significant percentage of the world's annual energy needs.

Given the challenges that the international system is facing today, the question has arisen as to whether the Antarctic Treaty has begun to be in danger, in addition to what is taking place in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. My answer is not immediately, but there is no doubt that there is a questioning of the international order, and that, since the invasion of Ukraine, geopolitical factors have burst into force in the globalized world, joining environmental and economic criteria. and legal.

Both forms, Antarctica and Antarctica, are correct. When talking about “Antarctica”, reference is made to all the lands south of 60 degrees S, while “Antarctic” is a concept that includes not only the lands, but also the maritime regions, whose limit external is located on the circumpolar line "Antarctic Convergence".

For its part, the Antarctic Treaty is one of the jewels of International Law. Will it be challenged as a consequence of the Russian-Chinese alliance's decision to question the international order built by the United States?

The Antarctic Treaty is an almost unique instrument, which is considered one of the great achievements in the search for the peaceful resolution of disputes in the history of humanity. It was signed in Washington on December 1, 1959 by twelve countries, and its entry into force began on June 23, 1961.

Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom signed; Belgium, Japan, South Africa, the United States and the Soviet Union (today replaced by Russia as successor state). Of these twelve, the first seven have territorial claims.

Something immediately comes to mind that would hardly be repeated today, since China is not among the signatories, today, in an open race to replace the United States as the main superpower, in a geopolitical contest that will define the 21st century.

At the time of signing the Treaty, disputes over sovereignty claims on the continent were suspended for a number of years. It consists of a brief introduction or preamble and only 14 articles, a brevity that, like good constitutions, has been an important part of its success.

It begins “Recognizing that it is in the interest of all humanity that Antarctica always continues to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and that it does not become the scene or object of international discord.”

The Treaty emphasizes the importance of the status quo: “No act or activity carried out while this Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or for creating rights.” of sovereignty in this region. No new claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be made, nor claims previously asserted expanded, while this Treaty is in force.

For its part, Article VII establishes that "all regions of Antarctica and all stations, facilities and equipment located there...shall be open at all times to inspection." This article aims to promote that observance of the content of the Treaty is always present for everyone.

It is considered a very successful conservation project that has allowed Antarctica to be a peaceful and unarmed continent, in which the exploitation of natural resources has been prohibited. The original 12 countries have increased, and today there are 56 signatories that support, among other things, the promotion of scientific research, the prohibition of nuclear explosions and radioactive waste from nuclear energy.

The Antarctic Treaty is, above all, an international agreement that seeks to avoid conflicts on the so-called white continent. The danger is not immediate since the information that emerged from Russia has not been delivered through an official channel or at the highest level in Moscow, but there is no doubt that the world is experiencing a revisionist stage, since the Russian-Chinese alliance has as fundamental objective to question the international system and its rules, as has been evident since the invasion of Ukraine, where one of the consequences has been precisely this alliance, and the historical error committed by the West by not preventing Russia from becoming a minor ally. from China.

However, the next Antarctic Treaty Summit next August in Argentina will not only bring together the signatory members, but representatives from approximately 150 countries will attend, and there is no doubt that the information that emerged from Russia gives it a different framework, If diplomatic and legal disputes arise, around this new stage of the world, where the geopolitical element has strongly penetrated an era in which globalization seemed to be based only on economics.

Even among the countries that claim Antarctic sovereignty, the case of Argentina and Chile is notable for the efforts made over decades in this regard. By the way, no one recognizes that claim as part of their territory, but they have made a recognized investment for the moment when that possibility opens, if it is not definitively closed in the future.

Furthermore, both countries have these claims as part of their future conflict scenarios, since sooner or later they will have to face the issue that their respective claims may give rise to a dispute, and therefore, a conflict, depending from where the line extends that from their respective territories penetrates the alleged Antarctic claim, and not only that, but that of both comes into conflict with the claim of the United Kingdom.

And in this regard there is already a precedent, since Chile and Argentina have resisted all the calls that have been made in the past to fully internationalize Antarctica, for example, the project presented in 1953 by India.

For its part, on May 4, 1955, the United Kingdom presented two lawsuits, one against Argentina and the other against Chile respectively, before the International Court of Justice to declare the invalidity of the sovereignty claims of both countries. On July 15, 1955, the Chilean government rejected the jurisdiction of the Court and on August 1 the Argentine government also did so, so on March 16, 1956, both lawsuits were filed.

Could the climate of questioning of the current international order reach the Antarctic Treaty? We do not know and hence the importance that the next summit meeting in Argentina could acquire to provide answers in this regard.

Chile and Argentina have made efforts to establish their claims, which have been sustained over time. Most of the time they have been individual and competitive efforts, but there have also been cooperative efforts. For example, in July 2003, both countries began to install a common shelter called “Abrazo de Maipú”, halfway between the O'Higgins bases in Chile and Esperanza bases in Argentina. For their part, since 1998 the Navies of both have carried out the Combined Naval Antarctic Patrol.

Chile and Argentina trace the origin of their legal rights to claim Antarctic territory in the Treaty of Tordesillas signed on June 7, 1494 between Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon on the Spanish side and John II of Portugal, with the objective of establish a demarcation line between both empires to divide the newly discovered New World.

The consistency of the individual effort of each country is shown in that Argentina has thirteen bases, six permanent and 7 temporary in the sector whose sovereignty it claims, and in both cases, the claimed territories are considerable, around one million and a quarter square kilometers in the Chilean case, and around one and a half million, in the Argentine case.

Chile has 13 operational establishments, 4 shelters and 9 active bases. Of these, four are permanent and five are for the summer. Like Argentina, it has made a serious effort to establish precedents, work that includes settlement. This is how in the Chilean case it has been sought that military personnel and scientists live with their families in Villa Las Estrellas, inaugurated in 1984, which has children born there, an airfield, a bank, a school, a daycare center, a hospital, supermarket, and, by the way, internet, TV and mobile phones.

We have said that both Chile and Argentina have done serious work, despite many internal changes, which is especially striking in the case of Argentina. Also, both countries have adapted to the international changes that have occurred since 1959, and, in fact, everything indicates that President Milei's government has done so quickly in the new scenario of geopolitical prominence that is emerging, since has announced a future military base shared with the United States in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, which is not a minor decision, especially after the previous government's non-material flirtations with China.

Antarctica is special, especially when compared to the Arctic, where Russia has long sought to adapt to climate change, developing a new commercial route for Europe and Asia, which has acquired an unexpected showcase for the problems created by the Yemeni Houthis and Iran to the transit of goods through the Red Sea, and for a couple of years, and as a consequence of their new alliance, today it has a strong component of Chinese capital and support.

None of this happens in Antarctica, and the question that arises is whether this is still sustainable. From the point of view of International Law, until 2048 the Protocol that governs Antarctica can only be modified by the agreement of those who have participated in the Antarctic Treaty.

The document that reinforces the environmental protection of the Antarctic Treaty is known as the “Madrid Protocol”, which does everything possible to regulate the growing tourist presence. This is how in the 2022-23 season, more than 70,000 tourists set foot on the continent, while nearly 33,000 people watched it from a cruise ship, without disembarking. In fact, a few days ago, in India, the 46th consultative meeting of the Antarctic Treaty took place on May 20, where the management of tourism on the frozen continent was also discussed.

The only possible economic activities, tourism and fishing, are fully regulated by a Treaty that would not have paid much attention to the existence of oil, but the world is in a process of change, and although the Antarctic Treaty is valid indefinitely, the possibility review starting in 2048 is something to take into account, and without a doubt in 24 years the correlation of forces at the international level may undergo changes that are not seen in their full magnitude today.

The question is whether a process of erosion of the content of the Antarctic Treaty towards the exploitation of energy and minerals can begin for geopolitical reasons, as outer space may also suffer.

A possible question is if today a power decides to start a process, if not exploitation, at least exploration on the Antarctic continent, will the Treaty continue to be respected in the same way as it has happened until now? Other questions are: Would a new scenario open up? Or will there be an international reaction that paralyzes the action or effectively sanctions those who have broken the status quo?

For now we do not know, it is, therefore, reason to hope that the next summit of signatory members of the Antarctic Treaty, next August in Argentina, will provide some more clarity in this regard.

@israelzipper

Ph.D. in Political Science (Essex), Law Degree (Barcelona), Lawyer (U. de Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».