The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings — Form and Procedure
| Author | Truls Hanevold |
| Published date | 01 November 1971 |
| Date | 01 November 1971 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/001083677100600304 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Antarctic
Treaty
Consultative Meetings -
Form
and
Procedure
TRULS HANEVOLD
The Fridtjof Nansen Foundation at Polhogda.
Lysaker, Norway
Hanevold, T. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings - Form and Procedure.
Cooperation and Conflict, VI,
1971,
183-99.
The Antarctic Treaty of
1959
establishcd a consultative system for the purpose of
passing recommendations to the signatory governments in pursuit of the objects and
principles of the treaty.
This article is a study in international negotiations. After an introduction detailing the
background for the negotiations, attention is drawn to the possible long-term aims and
strategies of the parties in view of their attitudes on the question of rights and claims
in Antarctica and their capabilities for conducting scientific research there. In part
two the preparations for the consultative meetings and thcir influence on the decision-
making process are described. Part three deals with the consultative meetings themselves,
how the delegations are
composed,
and their instructions and behaviour during the
negotiations. Different types of
sessions
and their particular characteristics are dis-
cussed.
The dynamics of the negotiations are treated in part four, which includes a
discussion of strategies. types of arguments, self-commitments, concessions and
strategies.
'Truls Haneuold,
The
Fridtjof Nunsen Foundation at Polhiigda, Lysaker, Norway.
In
the years following the Second
World
War
a
great
number
of
international
agreements have been negotiated. A con-
siderable
number
presuppose consultations
between the contracting parties.
In
some
cases
permanent
systems of consultations
have
been established, as in
the
UN
and
NATO.
In
other
agreements,
it
is
left
to
the parties to decide
when
there is a
need
for consultations. Still
another
model is
one where calls for consultations
have
been predetermined.
The
contents of the decisions evolving
from consultations
are
of a diversified
nature.
Sometimes decisions
will
be
made
which will be
binding
on the
participating
States.
Other
times consultations
play
an
advisory role
only
and
presuppose
further
contact between the parties before the
decisions or recommendations become ef-
fective.
According to the type
and
function of
consultations,
there
will be differences as
far
as the
procedure
and
the form of the
negotiations
are
concerned.
The
type of
consultations
will
be reflected in how the
delegations
are
composed, rules of voting,
types of sessions
and
how the delegates
approach
the
different
topics. .
It
is my
intention
in this article to
pre-
sent a
study
of one type of consultations,
atype which is relatively novel,
but
has
at
least
proved
successful in this
parti-
cular
context.
The
topic is the consultative
meetings
under
the
Antarctic
Treaty,
and
the
intention
is to present
an
account of
the system of negotiations established by
the treaty. By
doing
this, it will be pos-
sible to illuminate the present political sit-
uation
in Antarctica, an obscure topic to
most people.
The
Antarctic
experience,
however, is
important
because develop-
ment in this
part
of the
world
may
give
us some
idea
of the problems one
can
ex-
pect to encounter in
other
parts
of our
globe
where
similar
geographical, econo-
mical
and
political characteristics obtain,
notably
the Arctic, the
sea-bed
and
outer
space.
It
may
also indicate possible ways
to go in the development of these areas.
The
Antarctic
Treaty
consultative meet-
ings
are
interesting study objects also be-
184 Truls Hanevold
cause they have their origin in a situation
which is primarily peaceful.
It
is natural
to characterize an analysis of these meet-
ings as a study in international coopera-
tion.
The
main emphasis is in the coop-
eration of all parties in reaching mutually
beneficial results. There is a coordination
and harmonization of national attitudes
which each State accepts as necessary in
order to obtain its national political goals.
This implies a willingness to compromise
that is unusual in international contexts
and an atmosphere of negotiations with
certain particular characteristics.
It
is evident
that
the participating States
may have divided interests, and it is there-
fore interesting to see how national in-
terests are protected in view of the fact
that compromises are the likely outcome
of the negotiations. Preliminarily one
could say that national interests are cau-
tiously emphasized and seldom lead to
ultimatums, unless this can be defended
by referring to treaty rights or limitations.
I.
THE
BACKGROUND FOR
THE
NEGOTIATIONS
(a)
The
Antarctic Treaty
The
Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in
1959 and came into effect in 1961, binds
12 States in cooperation in the exploration
of the Antarctic continent.
The
treaty was
made possible mainly through the experi-
ences gained during the International Geo-
physical Year (IGY) 1957-58 when scien-
tists from a number of States carried out
extensive research in Antarctica. Because
of the special climatic conditions and the
vast areas being studied, it was necessary
to cooperate to make the most effective
use of personnel and equipment.
The
re-
sult of this cooperation, which involved
some long-time political and Antarctic
antagonists, was so successful that a com-
mon wish evolved to continue the effort
after the termination of IGY. To ac-
complish this, it was necessary to agree to
what extent and how this continued ex-
periment would influence the rights a
number of States
had
claimed for them-
selves in Antarctica and how best to pre-
vent conflicts over these rights from de-
veloping. A United States' initiative
brought 12 States together in Washington
in October 1959, after more than one year
of preliminary talks, and they succeeded
in formalizing the cooperation in a treaty
signed on December 1st.
The
treaty repre-
sented a temporary end to a number of
proposals aimed at the internationaliza_
tion of Antarctica. Not one received ge-
neral approval, mainly because some States
were opposed to anything that might be
perceived as a renunciation of their pro-
claimed rights in the area.
(b)
The
Main Principles of the Treaty
The
essence of the treaty is that Antarctica
should be an open, demilitarized continent
where anyone who so wishes, without re-
strictions other than those imposed by the
treaty, should have the right to carry out
scientific investigations whenever and
wherever he wants. To prevent disputes
about jurisdiction, the treaty states that
anything that happens in Antarctica while
it is in force should not change the posi-
tion of any State as
far
as questions of
territorial sovereignty or other rights they
may have claimed
are
concerned.
The
treaty forbids atomic detonations of any
kind, and emphasizes cooperation in the
development of Antarctica, exchange of
scientists and of operational and scientific
information.
(c) Existing Claims and Rights
The
12 States being parties to the treaty
are: Australia, Argentina, Belgium, Chile,
France,
Japan,
New Zealand, Norway,
The
Soviet Union, Great Britain, South Africa
and the United States. Seven have made
territorial claims: Argentina, Australia,
Chile, New Zealand, Norway, Great Bri-
tain and France. All claims are based
mainly on discoveries, and have been made
for economic, security or prestige reasons.
Argentina and Chile also support atheory
To continue reading
Request your trial