The Antarctic Treaty System: Antarctica in regional and global geopolitics

Antarctica, a special case in the world

When we allude to those who control a territory, ineludibly, the eyes stand on the sovereignty that a state possesses over it, being the geographical space delimited attribute or aspect of sovereignty. However, Antarctica is a special case, unique in the world. Antarctica is the sixth and most austral continent, and has a surface of 13,66 km2, but does not belong to any state. Lastly, it does not eliminate many states that have (and continue to do so) claiming part of their territory, nor that it does not have any type of administration.

The white continent presents itself as an empty and deserted continent with harsh weather conditions that make everyday life difficult. However, the interest that has awakened in the states throughout history originates in other reasons. To begin with, Antarctica is a 70% reservoir of all the fresh water on the planet. But also, thanks to the increasing number of expeditions, the abundance of many other natural resources such as oil and natural gas that eacced below the thick layers of ice.

There are currently seven countries that claim sovereignty over part of Antarctica: Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, Norway, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Some of them justify their claim for contiguity and geographical continuity, while others do so by possessing more remote expedition records in the past. This does not eliminate the only States present on the continent, but it is not very significant that these seven were part of the twelve States signatories to the Antarctic Treaty.

The Antarctic Treaty and its importance in the world order

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 by 12 countries in Washington. In those times, in the international system there had been a bipolar order of strong ideological dispute and arms race that radiated all over the globe. In order to keep the area away from this systemic rivalry, it is above the Antarctic Treaty. This did not mean little, since within the signatories were both the United States and the Soviet Union.

The common management of Antarctica, which is then born in a context of total distrust between the parties, is presented as a major milestone. But these efforts were not shaped in a single treaty, but with time, from it, there were many conventions that were agreed to regulate the conservation of flora and fauna, activities and environmental protection. The reason for the signing of this series of legal instruments, which make up what we can call the Antarctic regime, is in the marked interest that awakened the white continent in more and more actors of the international community. Proof of this, we have found the growing number of states that have joined the Antarctic Treaty as consultative and non-advisory parties. The legitimacy with which this Antarctic system has emerged and also with the validity it has kept, allows us to state that we are facing one of the strongest regimes since World War II.

Deficiencies and threats to the Antarctic regime: overlapping territorial claims and rivalries between States.

The Antarctic Treaty, among other provisions, prohibits military and nuclear exercises, the installation of bases for military purposes, proclaims freedom of scientific research and acknowledges the existence of territorial complaints prior to the signing of the agreement. Not less important for this international regime, is the Madrid Protocol 1991, which prohibits commercial exploitation of mining resources for 50 years.

However, the Antarctic regime is not exempt from weaknesses and threats. To begin with, the territorial claims of Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom overlap, and this is not a minor theme. Thus, tensions between these three states increase. Behind fear between Buenos Aires and London, lies the dispute for the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, where the United Kingdom organizes much of its Antarctic logistics. In turn, for some nationalist sectors it is difficult to forget the rivalry between Argentina and Chile (the cause of facing border limits and geopolitical fears) whose culmination was achieved during the Beagle Channel conflict.

The simple view, it seems that the rivalries mentioned are no more than old short circuits that had been buried in the past, but in fact ended up sedimenting in the perceptions of some strata of the societies and directional classes.

In Argentina, the anti-colonialist rhetoric against the United Kingdom was accentuated during the governments of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, with actions such as the final delimitation of the continental shelf and various exchanges of diplomatic notes with the Foreign Office for military exercises, fishing and extraction of minerals in disputed territorial waters. In turn, recently, in 2021, the then Chilean President Frederico Pinedo and the current Argentine President Alberto Fernández shocked by the Chilean claim of a maritime area of 5,500 kilometers below the island of Terra do Fogo. In addition, the Argentine government of Fernández increased patrol in the Antarctic neighborhood arousing the Chilean and British rescheme.

Despite living with tensions, Antarctic cooperation has achieved robustness, including among these three countries that have overlapped their territorial complaints. The establishment of the Combined Antarctic Naval Patrol between Chile and Argentina, the different work in the Joint Parliamentary Commission, and the recent creation of the Binational Antarctic Commission, demonstrate that cooperation between the two countries is afflicted. In addition, the right behind these efforts to strengthen the “Latin American pillar” of the Antarctic regime is the interest of asserting its territorial claims for contiguity and geographical continuity in the face of the aspirations of the United Kingdom.

The arist of Antarctic cooperation between the United Kingdom and Argentina, although not as solid as Argentina-Chilena, also gave some hints of distension, but in an interrupted manner. In addition to the withdrawal of the British opposition to establish the Secretariat of the Atlantic Treaty in Buenos Aires, a last major approach occurred in 2018 with the signing of a memorandum of understanding.

Throughout this article, we have seen how Antarctica has awakened, over time, increasing interest and how this trend has contributed to strengthening the Antarctic regime. However, at the moment, it seems that the advanced powers over the territory seem to remain modest if we compare with, for example, the Arctic scenario.

Although it is true that the different States have increased their presence in Antarctica with the installation of scientific bases and the number of budget headings for exploitation, all seems to indicate that it is a resurgence of the weight of states within the Antarctic system. The truth is that the Antarctic Treaty fixed a status quo of the power distribution that had the international system in the albores of the sixties, distribution that was modified in the present. Since then, new actors have gained power and others have seen their mermaid attributes. A clear example of this description is found in China, which adhered to the Treaty and gained the status of a consultative party, besides having installed bases in the territory.

The year 2048 will be a new great test where the Antarctic regime should demonstrate its robustness as it did during its validity. This date of high media profile does not mean the end of the Antarctic Treaty, but the date stipulated for the revision of the Madrid Protocol on the use of non-scientific mineral resources.

To conclude, it is important to note that this Antarctic regime managed to survive through the understanding between the powers involved, but also due to the great efforts of the weakest states to keep it. In this sense, it represents an emblematic and hopeful case of cooperation and commitment between States in an increasingly unstable and harsh international order.