The geopolitics of Antarctic governance: sovereignty and strategic denial in Australia's Antarctic policy

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’.

KEYWORDS:

• Antarctic Treaty System
• Antarctica
• Australia
• legitimacy
• sovereignty
• strategic denial

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this article was presented at the School of Political Science and International Studies Research Seminar Series in 2013. I wish to thank the participants in that seminar for their constructive comments, which shaped the direction of the article. I also wish to thank Nicholas Barry and Toula Nicolacopoulos at La Trobe University, and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which greatly improved the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.