https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8271-7061
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Antarctica is celebrated by the international community as a continent exclusively for peace and science. Since its inception in 1959 the Antarctic governance regime, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), has provided stable and enduring governance of the region and has played a critical role in the development of peaceful norms between states in Antarctic affairs. Specifically, the Antarctic Treaty prohibits measures of a military nature, bans the testing of any type of weapon in the Antarctic, allows for open-access and inspection of all facilities, and essentially freezes the contentious issue of territorial claims and sovereignty. These measures are widely believed to have contributed to the continent remaining free from violent armed conflict between states in, or because of, Antarctica. Despite the emphasis placed on the concepts of ‘peace’ and ‘peaceful purposes’ in Antarctic affairs, there has been little attention afforded to defining these terms, and thus the idea of peace is conceptualised exclusively in its negative form; the absence of conflict. This paper argues that an expanded definition of peace to include positive peace is useful when evaluating the successes and limitations of the ATS in promoting peace in the Antarctic. While the possibility of conflict in the Antarctic in the near future remains remote, this paper goes on to identify several potential threats to peace which could undermine the stability of the ATS, which could prompt future scholarship on how the ATS could be developed to promote robust, positive and lasting peace in the Antarctic.
Acknowledgement
I am extremely grateful to Dr. Daniela Liggett for her helpful and encouraging comments on earlier versions of this paper, and to the staff at the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty for their support and insights during the writing of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Beck, “Keeping Conflict on Ice,” 18.
2 Gilbert, “A Continent for Science and Peace,” 327.
3 Brady, “Conflict or Cooperation?” 2.
4 Triggs, “The Antarctic Treaty System,” 40.
5 Antarctic Treaty, 72.
6 See for example Coates, “Geopolitics threatens Antarctic’s future”; and Romero, “Countries Rush for Upper Hand in Antarctica’.
7 Jabour, “Why Has There Been a “Long Peace,”’ 635. While beyond the scope of this paper, future research on the influence of public perception and media commentaries on national Antarctic policies could provide a valuable framework for analysing how states respond to Antarctic issues.
8 Ibid., 633.
9 Antarctic Treaty, 72.
10 Ibid.
11 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, 8 (italics added).
12 While there have been several publications discussing Antarctic from a strategic studies perspective, this discipline remains distinct from peace and conflict studies, albeit closely related. See for example Hemmings et al., Antarctic Security in the Twenty-First Century.
13 Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” 167.
14 Richmond, “Peace in International Relations Theory,” 61.
15 Eichler, War, Peace and International Security, 1.
16 Martín, “Critical Analysis of the Concept of Peace,” 45.
17 Ibid., 46.
18 Ibid.
19 Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” 183.
20 Ibid.
21 Boulding, Stable Peace, 3.
22 Ibid.
23 Webel et al., Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, 28.
24 Diehl, “Exploring Peace,” 2.
25 Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” 183.
26 Boulding, Stable Peace, 3.
27 Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” 183.
28 Diehl, “Exploring Peace,” 2.
29 Boulding, Stable Peace, 3.
30 Webel et al., Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, 28.
31 Ibid.
32 Martin et al., “International Organizations and Institutions,” 328.
33 Keohane et al., “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory,” 50.
34 Antarctic Treaty, 80.
35 Cortright et al., Governance for Peace, 6.
36 Gilbert, “A Continent for Science and Peace,” 328–329.
37 Triggs, “The Antarctic Treaty System,” 41.
38 Watts, “Antarctic Treaty as a Conflict Resolution Mechanism,” 67.
39 Antarctic Treaty, 74.
40 Dodds, The Antarctic: A Very Short Introduction, 64.
41 Lee, “The 1959 Antarctic Treaty: The “Freezing and Bifocalism” Formula,” 200.
42 Carol, in Haward, “Australian Interests, Bifocalism, Bipartisanship, and the Antarctic Treaty System,” 60.
43 Gilbert, “A Continent for Science and Peace,” 327.
44 Joyner, “Nonmilitarization of the Antarctic,” 86.
45 Ibid.
46 Dodds, “Antarctic Geopolitics,” 204.
47 Nyman, “Contemporary Security Concerns,” 572.
48 Ibid., 572–573.
49 Ibid.
50 Joyner, “Nonmilitarization of the Antarctic,” 88.
51 Antarctic Treaty, 72.
52 Ibid.
53 Joyner, “Nonmilitarization of the Antarctic,” 89.
54 Beck, The International Politics of Antarctica, 69.
55 Joyner, “Nonmilitarization of the Antarctic,” 90.
56 See for example Hemmings, “Is Antarctica Demilitarised?’; and Bateman, “Strategic competition and emerging security risks’.
57 Triggs, “The Antarctic Treaty System,” 44.
58 Dodds, “Antarctic Geopolitics,” 207.
59 Gilbert, “A Continent for Science and Peace,” 338.
60 Ibid., 329.
61 Scully, “Development of the Antarctic Treaty System,” 37.
62 Antarctic Treaty, 72.
63 Ibid., 74.
64 Gilbert, “Governance in Antarctica,” 330.
65 Beck, The International Politics of Antarctica, 84.
66 Triggs, “The Antarctic Treaty System,” 40.
67 Antarctic Treaty, 79.
68 Jabour, “Why Has There Been a “Long Peace,”’ 642.
69 Dodds et al., “Post-colonial Antarctica,” 59.
70 Scott, “Managing Sovereignty and Jurisdictional Disputes,” 5.
71 Triggs, “The Antarctic Treaty System,” 45.
72 Hemmings, “Antarctic Politics in a Transforming Global Geopolitics,” 517.
73 Rothwell, “The Antarctic Treaty as a Security Construct,” 50.
74 See for example Dodds, “Post-colonial Antarctica: An Emerging Engagement,” 63; and Scott, “Ingenious or Innocuous?’ 56.
75 Hemmings et al., “Introduction,” 8.
76 Dodds, “Post-colonial Antarctica: An Emerging Engagement,” 63.
77 Scott, “Ingenious or Innocuous?’ 58.
78 Dodds, The Antarctic, 65.
79 Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” 387.
80 Eichler, War, Peace and International Security, 3.
81 Hemmings, “Considerable Values in the Antarctic,” 140.
82 Dodds, “Post-colonial Antarctica: An Emerging Engagement,” 63.
83 Eichler, War, Peace and International Security, 3.
84 Nyman, “Contemporary Security Concerns,” 580.
85 Hemmings, “Is Antarctica Demilitarised?’ 228.
86 Antarctic Treaty, 72.
87 Hemmings, “Is Antarctica Demilitarised?’ 226.
88 See for example the strong emphasis on the role of New Zealand’s armed forces in supporting civilian operations in Antarctic in the New Zealand Ministry of Defence’s 2016 White Paper.
89 Hemmings, “Is Antarctica Demilitarised?’ 230.
90 Ibid., 229.
91 Ibid., 231.
92 Bateman, “Strategic competition and emerging security risks,” 125.
93 Hemmings et al., “Introduction,” 11.
94 Hemmings, “Antarctic Politics in a Transforming Global Geopolitics,” 513.
95 Ibid.
96 Hemmings, “Security beyond Claims,” 82–83.
97 See for example Bergin et al., “Funding cuts threaten our standing in Antarctica’.
98 Ibid.
99 Brady, “The past in the present,” 285.
100 Rothwell et al., “The search for “Antarctic security”,” 9.
101 Hemmings, “Antarctic Politics in a Transforming Global Geopolitics,” 513.
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid.
104 Ibid.
105 Hemmings, “Antarctic Politics in a Transforming Global Geopolitics,” 513.
106 Hemmings, “The Hollowing of Antarctic Governance,” 19.
107 Rothwell et al., “The search for “Antarctic security,”’ 6.
108 Hemmings, “Antarctic Politics in a Transforming Global Geopolitics,” 511.
109 Bateman, “Strategic competition and emerging security risks,” 120.
110 Triggs, “The Antarctic Treaty System,” 40.