Polar opposites
Abstract
Introduction In 2009 the 1959 Antarctic Treaty celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. Its resilience in managing the Antarctic continent and parts of the adjacent Southern Ocean is generally seen as one of the great ‘success stories’ of contemporary international law. This is especially the case when it is considered that the treaty was negotiated during the height of the Cold War at a time when the then USSR and United States had significant interests in Antarctica, and that the treaty never sought to resolve simmering sovereignty tensions over parts of the continent, especially those between Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom over their competing claims to parts of the Antarctic Peninsula. Now, in the early part of the twenty-first century, and notwithstanding the lack of recognition which has been granted to the seven territorial claims to the Antarctic continent, the Antarctic Treaty includes not only the original twelve states parties, but an additional thirty-six states parties from varied parts of the globe, and retains its capacity to effectively manage Antarctic affairs. At the other pole, the Arctic attracts attention as a region in need of an effective regime. Whilst the Arctic is not plagued by unresolved territorial disputes, there is the spectre of rising tension over yet to be asserted maritime claims over the vast Arctic Ocean, and consequential issues arising as to the legitimacy of those claims and how maritime boundaries between the Arctic states may be delimited. When this issue is added to the growing alarm over the impact of climate change upon the Arctic, bringing with it not only associated significant environmental change but also increased access, it becomes clear that a once marginalised region for much of the twentieth century has the potential to take centre stage as state interests are awoken and global concerns advance.