Assessing the maritime ‘rules-based order’ in Antarctica

ABSTRACT

International Relations has become increasingly interested in maritime order as the oceans have emerged as a key site of strategic competition. The South China Sea has become totemic of contests between ‘free’ and ‘closed’ visions of the seas, and is viewed by some as a litmus test for China’s efforts to re-write the ‘rules-based order’ in other maritime domains. This article examines the maritime ‘rules-based order’ in Antarctica, critically examining how and why the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) matters for the Antarctic region, the Southern Ocean and mechanisms of regional governance. This article contributes to understanding the complexity of maritime order in Antarctica by using Australia’s maritime claims as a case study. Australia is the largest claimant state in Antarctica, with the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) constituting 42% of the landmass. This paper examines Australia’s contentious maritime jurisdiction and its ‘normative hedging’ strategy that simultaneously asserts maritime claims and defends collective governance mechanisms, despite the apparent dissonance between these two positions. It argues that the Antarctic region has its own unique ‘rules-based order’ and geographic realities that complicate cross-regional comparisons, and that even so-called ‘like-minded’ states interpret maritime rules in different ways.

KEYWORDS:

• Antarctica
• UNCLOS
• maritime order
• Australia

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In the Westphalian territorial order, there are a number of ways that states may seek to demonstrate acquisition of territory, including physical occupation, voluntary cessation (transfer of title), accretion, prescription (occupying without challenge), treaties and conquest (Joyner 1995, 50). In Antarctica, very few of these are relevant owning to the geophysical facts, meaning that claimant states ‘fail to conform to customary standards for acquisition of sovereign territorial rights, and unable to politically and economically “colonise” the territory to the standards required for international recognition’ (Joyner 1995, 49). As Kaye and Rothwell (1995, 197) note, it is sufficient to say that those currently asserted are ‘as good as any other claim that may be made to the continent’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rebecca Strating

Rebecca Strating is the Director of La Trobe Asia and Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University.