Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Yearbook of International Law |
Last Updated: 9 February 2019
RECONCILING REGIONAL AND GLOBAL DISPENSATIONS: THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUB-ANTARCTIC EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF PENETRATION OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AREA
Alan D
Hemmings[†] and Tim
Stephens[*]
I. ANTARCTIC PARADOX
Considerable attention has been concentrated on
the difficulties posed for Antarctic territorial claimants in seeking to realise
coastal
state rights in the continental shelves from their claimed territories
under Article 76 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).[1] That provision permits a
coastal state to establish a continental shelf that extends seawards beyond the
normal 200 nm continental
shelf where the geologic or bathymetric shelf
continues, normally to a total distance not further than 350 nm from the
territorial
sea baselines. To establish such an extended continental shelf
(ECS), states must file a submission of delineation data with the
Commission on
the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), the technical body established by
UNCLOS and charged with assessing submissions
and making recommendations as to
ECS limits. The claimants that have so far made submissions of data
to the CLCS have adopted a range of approaches in relation to the Antarctic
components of their submissions.[2]
However they have each in some manner shown sensitivity towards the geopolitical
realities surrounding the question of Antarctic
territorial claims, and the
modus vivendi achieved through the 1959 Antarctic
Treaty,[3] in particular its Article
IV.
Little consideration has been directed to the implications of
establishing continental shelves from the sub-Antarctic islands north
of the
Antarctic Treaty area; that is, beyond 60° south latitude. These islands,
aside from the South Georgia and South Sandwich
groups, which are subject to a
broader territorial dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina around the
Falkland/Malvinas
islands, appear to have been seen as unproblematic for two
reasons: their uncontested sovereignty, and their location outside the
Antarctic
Treaty area. However, as the largely successful 2004 submission by Australia to
the CLCS indicates, recommendations by
the CLCS in relation to sub-Antarctic
islands may result in ECS penetration into the Antarctic Treaty area south of
60° South
latitude.[4]
This has been the case with the ECS from both of Australia’s sub-Antarctic
islands: Macquarie Island and the Heard and McDonald
Islands group (Figure 1).
The already problematical South Sandwich Islands, whose most southerly isles are
in any case very close
to the northern boundary of the Antarctic Treaty area,
also possess a continental shelf apparently extending into the area (Figure
1).
This situation raises interesting questions in relation to the
established collective management of the area south of 60° South.
For the
first time there appears to be an objective international assignation (via
UNCLOS and the CLCS process) of individual state
rights to areas within the
Antarctic Treaty area. Whereas claimed territory within the Antarctic Treaty
area remains ‘frozen’,
with the claimant being effectively unable,
thanks to Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty and the general non-recognition of
claims
by the international community, to realise what it sees as territorial
prerogatives, a situation now arises where territory beyond
the Antarctic Treaty
area may be seen to generate preclusive rights within the Antarctic Treaty area.
This, perhaps unanticipated
Antarctic paradox, is the focus of this
article.[5]
II. SUBMISSIONS TO THE CLCS AFFECTING THE ANTARCTIC AND SUB-ANTARCTIC
Fifty one submissions have been made to the CLCS
pursuant to Article 76(8) of
UNCLOS.[6] Of the seven Antarctic
claimants, only one (Chile) has yet to make a substantive submission to CLCS,
although on 8 May 2009, pursuant
to a decision taken by Parties at the 18th
Meeting of State Parties to the Convention, it submitted ‘Preliminary
Information’.[7]
Australia made a full submission in 2004 which included the Australian
continent, offshore islands (including those in the sub-Antarctic)
and the
Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). However, in an accompanying note Australia
requested the CLCS not to consider the AAT
ECS data for the time
being.[8] A less assertive approach
was taken by New Zealand in its partial ECS submission in 2006, which excluded
the Ross Dependency, but
also advised that a submission for this area may be
made later.[9] The United Kingdom
made a partial submission in relation to Ascension Island in the South Atlantic
in 2008, where it also declared
that areas of continental shelf appurtenant to
Antarctica may be addressed in a later
submission.[10]
In a further partial submission in May 2009 in relation to the Falkland Islands,
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands the
United Kingdom included data
for ECS areas which entered the Antarctic Treaty
area.[11] France addressed its
Antarctic Territory in a 2009 partial submission in relation to the
sub-Antarctic Kerguelen Islands and the
French Antilles (see below), advising
that it did not include areas of the continental shelf that adjoin Antarctica,
‘for which
a submission may later be
made’.[12]
In April 2009, Argentina made a full submission to the CLCS, including what
it termed the ‘Argentine Antarctic Sector’
and the ‘Islas
Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur’. Not only did Argentina
include data for the Antarctic,
but the accompanying note did not (as Australia
had done) request the CLCS not to consider the Antarctic
area.[13]
The Argentine submission will be considered in more detail below in relation to
its sub-Antarctic components. However, in relation
to the Antarctic component,
Argentina is the only state to have submitted data for the ECS appurtenant to
its Antarctic claim without
qualification (we now await the Chilean position -
the Preliminary Information it submitted advises that ‘[the] Commission
will be duly informed on the option to be taken by Chile regarding the Chilean
Antarctic Territory’[14]).
The Executive Summary of the Argentine submission does not identify any
dispute in relation to the Antarctic component (although it
does in relation to
the sub-Antarctic components, as discussed
below).[15]
However the Argentine covering note for the submission does make two significant
references to the Antarctic Treaty:
The Argentine Republic recalls ... the importance of ensuring consistency between the Antarctic Treaty System and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in order to ensure continued peaceful cooperation, security and stability in the Antarctic region.
The Argentine Republic also takes into account the circumstances of the
region south of 60 degrees south latitude and the special
legal and political
status of Antarctica under the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, including
article IV thereof, and the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits
of the Continental
Shelf.[16]
This specific
reference to the Rules of Procedure of the CLCS, in the context of the area
south of 60° South, may reflect recognition
of the inability of the
Commission to consider data for any area of ECS in this zone if considered by
the CLCS to be subject to dispute
because of the operation of the Antarctic
Treaty.[17]
Rounding out the
CLCS submissions by Antarctic claimants is Norway’s May 2009 partial
submission relating specifically to its
Antarctic possessions –
sub-Antarctic Bouvetøya (often rendered as Bouvet) and its continental
territory of Dronning
Maud Land. Interestingly, one part of Norway’s
Antarctic claim – Peter I Øy in the Bellingshausen Sea –
was
not mentioned (at least in the publicly available Executive Summary).
Norway’s submission charted a middle course between
the essentially
unqualified submission of Argentina on the one hand, and the more restrained
strategy adopted by New Zealand and
the United Kingdom on the other, and, as
with Australia, Norway requested the CLCS not to take any action for the time
being in relation
to the continental shelf appurtenant to
Antarctica.[18]
The result of the
submissions that have been made over the last five years is that the submarine
areas of all of the sub-Antarctic
islands north of the Antarctic Treaty area
have been brought before the CLCS. Indeed two sub-Antarctic groups (South
Georgia and
the South Sandwich Islands) have been subject to submissions by two
states – Argentina and the United Kingdom. The sub-Antarctic
islands of
Australia (Macquarie; Heard and McDonald), New Zealand (arguably: Auckland;
Campbell),[19] Argentina (Georgia
del Sur; Sandwich del Sur)[20] and
Norway (Bouvetøya), are included in the broader submissions already
discussed. The sub-Antarctic islands of France (Kerguelen;
Crozet) have been the
subject of two separate partial submissions: Kerguelen with the French Antilles
in a submission by France in
early
2009;[21] Crozet with South
Africa’s Prince Edward Islands in a joint submission by France and South
Africa in May 2009.[22]
The
workload of the CLCS increased dramatically in the period leading up to the May
2009 deadline which applies to most submissions,
and as a result the CLCS has
been able to make recommendations only in relation to eight
submissions.[23] Two of the eight
recommendations concern submissions with an Antarctic and/or sub-Antarctic
component, those of Australia and New
Zealand. The CLCS recommendation in April
2008 on the Australian submission accepted the bulk of the data presented
including, critically
for our purposes here, the penetration south of 60°
South of the ECS from Australia’s two sub-Antarctic island
groups.[24] In August 2008, the CLCS
made its recommendations in relation to the New Zealand
submission.[25] Given that New
Zealand had decided not to include data for the Ross Dependency, and its
sub-Antarctic islands are relatively northerly,
no New Zealand ECS extended
south of 60° South. Similarly, the ECS from the Norwegian sub-Antarctic
island of Bouvetøya
poses no issues in relation to the Antarctic Treaty
area. Although the island is in a high latitude, its ECS projects in a
north-easterly
direction.[26] Had a
similar size ECS been found to the south, it would have extended south of
60° South.
However, a similar situation to that which arose in relation
to the Australian sub-Antarctic islands occurs in relation to the South
Sandwich
Islands, which are addressed in both the full Argentine submission and a partial
United Kingdom submission. Because of the
high latitude of the most southerly of
these islands, the geological continental shelf extends substantially south of
60° South.
The fact that there is plainly a longstanding dispute between
the United Kingdom and Argentina over South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands may very likely have resulted in the CLCS deciding to put aside
consideration of these areas anyway, but this has been put
beyond doubt by both
states submitting notes which draw attention to this fact and which explicitly
request the Commission not to
examine the applicable parts of the other’s
submission.[27] This would appear to
rule out the perhaps rather unlikely, but theoretical possibility, that the two
disputing parties might ask
the CLCS to examine the geological data without
prejudice to the resolution of their overlapping claims, creating the
possibility
that there could be a second instance of sub-Antarctic-based ECS
penetrating the Antarctic Treaty area.
Whereas it made no explicit reference
to a land or maritime dispute in relation to the Antarctic components of its
submission, Argentina
recognised that such a dispute existed in relation to the
‘Isles Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur’, and
its
duty as a submitting coastal state to advise the CLCS of
this.[28] As such the existence of a
dispute was identified solely in relation to the United Kingdom and there was
here (as in the subsequent
United Kingdom submission in relation to the same
islands, and the much earlier Australian submission,) no consideration of any
potential
problems in relation to ECS areas from sub-Antarctic islands entering
the Antarctic Treaty area.
The United Kingdom’s partial submission for
the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (noting that
the last two groups are administratively a single UK Overseas Territory)
included a reference to the fact that ‘this partial
submission is also the
subject of a submission by Argentina’ and:
In accordance with paragraph 2(b) of Annex I to the Commission’s Rules
of Procedure, the UK wishes to inform the Commission
that, in its view, this
partial submission and the recommendations of the Commission made in respect of
it will not prejudice matters
relating to the delimitation of boundaries between
the UK and any other
State.[29]
Neither the
Argentine nor United Kingdom submissions appear to entertain any doubts about
the acceptability of sub-Antarctic ECS penetration
into the Antarctic Treaty
area. Yet the penetration from the South Sandwich / Sandwich del Sur group is
very considerable, as Figure
6 in the Argentine Executive Summary and Figure 1
in the United Kingdom’s Executive Summary show. On the basis of the
latter,
the penetration below 60° South extends from almost 20° to
40° west longitude and as far south as about 63° South
latitude.
III. THE ANTARCTIC MODUS VIVENDI
The Antarctic Treaty, with subsequent instruments
constituting the ATS, achieves many important objectives. The most fundamental
of
these is the modus vivendi which contains claims to territorial
sovereignty south of 60° South latitude, which were (and which remain) the
most obvious
incitements to the ‘international discord’ that the
treaty seeks to prevent. The achievement of the Antarctic Treaty’s
celebrated Article IV is that by satisfying claimant, potential claimant, and
claim-repudiating states, it created the legal and
political space for free
access, scientific and logistical cooperation, and for the creation of the
governance regime that became
the ATS.
With time, the ATS became not only
the mechanism for continued containment of the underlying sovereignty tensions
between claimants
and others within the community of states parties to
the ATS (the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs)), but the basis for
asserting ever
more confidently the claims to special responsibility for
Antarctica of the ATCPs in relation to the general international community
outside the ATS.[30] This
saw, inter alia, the ATCPs individually and collectively resisting the
intrusion (as they saw it) of the Group of 77 states into Antarctic affairs
through the annual ‘Question of Antarctica’ in the United Nations
General Assembly in the 1980s and early 1990s, the
carefully circumscribed
access to Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) granted to the United
Nations system via UNEP’s
Expert status, and the cautious approach to
interaction with other regional institutions and (particularly) the major global
instruments.
Antarctic exceptionalism was therefore the guiding principle in
the development and operation of the
ATS.[31] Whilst formally the
dispensation of Antarctica as an objective regime was based upon the containment
of territorial sovereignty,
between claimants and other members, the
assumptions, norms and claims had broadened beyond this to a more general claim
to a collective
hegemony over the Antarctic Treaty area. Joyner characterised
this as a de facto condominium status, suggesting that ‘a plausible
argument can be made that the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs)
have
acquired collective rights to establish regulatory regimes for Antarctica and
its offshore regions’.[32]
So long as activities in the Antarctic Treaty area were limited to national
science programmes, this was not problematic. ‘Outsider’
states were
by definition outsiders – states which lacked the capacity for independent
action in Antarctica. The difficulty
arose when ATCPs themselves developed a
capacity and interest in realising resource options in the area, particularly in
the seas
beyond the Antarctic continent where the modus vivendi did not
apply with equivalent force and clarity. At this point, the permeability of the
politically-constructed ‘boundary’
of the Antarctic Treaty area at
60° South became obvious. This stimulated the ATCPs to attend to issues of
Southern Ocean governance,
including ‘specific policies directed at
regulating sealing, fishing, mineral exploitation, and environmental protection
offshore
the continent’.[33]
This strategy was not challenged by the coexisting maritime claims from
sub-Antarctic islands, all of which are claimed by ATCPs
and in respect of which
sovereign rights were generally accepted. Specific allowance was made within ATS
instruments in respect of
these new topics of Antarctic concern. However the
bright line distinction between maritime zones from the Antarctic continent and
maritime zones outside the Antarctic Treaty area but within the scope of
specific ATS instruments, such as the Convention on the
Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR),[34] can no longer be
maintained with the arrival of ECS areas asserted from sub-Antarctic islands
entering the Antarctic Treaty area.
IV. A PRECEDENT IN CRAMRA?
Although sovereign territory and consequential
maritime zones such as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) have intercalated with
the CCAMLR
area since its inception, this has only occurred well north of
60° South. Until the recent CLCS recommendations in relation
to the
Australian submission, there had been no global recognition of sovereign areas
within the Antarctic Treaty area. However,
a possible demonstration of the
acceptability, at least to ATCPs, of spill-overs across the Antarctic Treaty
boundary, was provided
in the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral
Resource Activities (CRAMRA).[35]
The general area of application of CRAMRA was stated to be the Antarctic
Treaty area, with the ‘seabed and subsoil of adjacent
offshore islands up
to the deep seabed’ also
included.[36] Watts has noted that
as a result ‘if the geographic extent of the continental shelf appurtenant
to that land extends north
of 60° South (as it does in the area of the
Antarctic Peninsula), then mineral activities on that more northerly area of
shelf
are also subject to the
Convention’.[37] On the other
hand, CRAMRA was silent in the case of territory to the north of the Antarctic
Treaty area possessing appurtenant continental
shelf areas extending south of
60° south,[38] as has
subsequently proven to be the case with some of the sub-Antarctic islands. The
matter was instead addressed in the CRAMRA
Final Act:
The Meeting agreed that the area of regulation of Antarctic mineral resource
activities defined in Article 5(2) of the Convention
does not extend to any
continental shelf appurtenant in accordance with international law to islands
situated north of 60° south
latitude.[39]
In the event,
CRAMRA was overtaken by developments which led to prohibition of mining in
Antarctica through the conclusion of the
Protocol. CRAMRA has not entered into
force, and given the apparent durability of the Protocol there is little
likelihood that this
will occur.[40]
On one view, this need not, of itself, affect the precedential value of
CRAMRA in terms of its acceptance within the ATS of continental
shelf
penetration of the Antarctic Treaty area. Moreover, the underlying basis for
both the CRAMRA and the law of the sea is the
generally undisputed fact that
sub-Antarctic islands generate coastal state entitlement to a continental shelf.
CRAMRA foundered
because of the failure to gain consensus within the ATS on the
acceptability of mineral resource activities within the Antarctic
Treaty area,
as the result of widespread acknowledgement of the economic, environmental, and
ultimately geopolitical costs that were
thought likely to result from such
activity.[41] Ironically, amongst
the potential rights flowing from favourable CLCS recommendations in the
Antarctic Treaty area are precisely
these activities, whether or not the
beneficiary states intend to realise them. Whilst these are procedurally barred,
they are not
substantively nullified by the Protocol’s prohibition on
mining in the Antarctic Treaty area.
V. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
A. Tensions Within and Between Regimes
From what one might
term an ‘Antarctic system’ perspective (as opposed to the
perspective of a beneficiary coastal state,
notwithstanding it also being an
ATCP), the risk here is of engendering tensions between legal rights acquired
under general international
law and the ATS. Whereas CRAMRA collapsed before it
could sanction claims to cross-Antarctic Treaty area continental shelf rights,
the CLCS is up and running and has now delivered its first recommendations going
directly to this question. Further, since it is
not part of the ATS
architecture, it cannot of itself consider any particular Antarctic
ramifications. The disabling of its consideration
of ECS appurtenant to land
within the Antarctic Treaty area is, after all, achieved via a generically
applicable dispute trigger
in its Rules of Procedure, and not because of any
Antarctic-specific appreciations.
The analysis thus far has considered in
general terms the Antarctic complications arising from submissions to the CLCS
by three states
(Argentina, Australia and the United Kingdom) where their
sub-Antarctic islands have an ECS that penetrates the Antarctic Treaty
area. The
CLCS made favourable recommendations in relation to the Australian submission,
and thus the penetration of the area by
the ECS of Heard and McDonald Islands
and Macquarie Island is a fait accompli. By contrast, the fact that both
Argentina and the United Kingdom have made submissions in relation to South
Georgia and the South
Sandwich Islands, and that the dispute over these
territories is both acknowledged by these states and argued by each to require
that CLCS not consider the other’s relevant data, means that the CLCS will
not consider these parts of the submissions. As
a result, for the time being the
potential ECS areas from these islands create no difficulties for the ATS,
beyond the fact, presumably,
that the two claimant states will continue to
reserve their position in relation to any collective ATS action that might
affect these
areas. Because the future is an uncertain country, we continue to
cast the discussion in generic terms, whilst recognising that in
the near-term
at least the practical issues may be essentially confined to the two Australian
sub-Antarctic islands. If indeed, as
it presently appears, Australia is on its
own in this respect, this may pose some interesting challenges to both it and
the ATS in
terms of what is not only acceptable, but operationally
workable.
B. Confidence in the ATS
Over the longer term, one question that must be
posed is whether the project of seeking to secure coastal state rights within
the
Antarctic Treaty area speaks to the confidence of key original signatories
to the Antarctic Treaty in both the durability and utility
of the ATS.
Historically, major emergent resource issues in the Antarctic have been
addressed through a stand-alone instrument adopted within
the ATS (with the
notable exception of whaling, an activity that substantially predated the ATS
and was already regulated by the
International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling).[42] Each instrument
concluded to date has become (or was intended to be) the sole multilateral
mechanism to regulate that activity within
the Antarctic Treaty area, whether
fishing, sealing, or minerals extraction. The establishment of coastal state
rights within the
Antarctic Treaty area on the ECS means that this sort of
exclusive ATS jurisdiction would not be possible if and when further regulation
was considered that might affect that ECS area. The most likely near-term
activities where this might arise are those associated
with mineral resources
and bioprospecting.
C. Mineral Resources
In the near-term, the potential minerals issue
on the extended continental shelf within the Antarctic Treaty area may not pose
insurmountable
problems. The availability of minerals from less difficult and
expensive areas, and the present global recession, are immediate constraints.
Further, the sub-Antarctic coastal states involved are all ATCPs and subject to
the Article 7 prohibition of mineral resource activities
in the Protocol in the
Antarctic Treaty area.
It would seem possible to argue that ECS areas from
sub-Antarctic islands that penetrate the Antarctic Treaty area are in fact areas
subtracted from the Antarctic Treaty area, and thus not in fact covered by the
Protocol. The present governments of the relevant
states appear unlikely to take
this line (indeed the Australian government has made clear that it regards the
mining prohibition
as extending throughout the Antarctic Treaty area) but this
need not always be the case. Nonetheless it must reasonably be inferred
that
these states’ interest in acquiring (or formalising) rights over the ECS
amount to a claim to resource interests and their
capacity to realise them if or
when the status quo in Antarctica ends. These sub-Antarctic coastal
states may also of course hold genuine concerns for enhancing environmental
protection,
research and containing possible exploitation of these resources by
others. These may not necessarily be consistent with the collective
ATS approach
to these matters within the Antarctic Treaty area. Benign intentions are still
capable of posing a challenge for collective
ATS governance on these
matters.
There may be reasonable confidence that mineral resource activity on
those parts of any CLCS-sanctioned ECS that penetrates the Antarctic
Treaty area
will not be pursued for the time being, but what about a future when the time
comes for a re-examination of the prohibition
on those activities? Under Article
25(2) of the Protocol, a review conference can be called by any ATCP 50 years
after its entry
into force; that is in 2048. This is still some time ahead, and
the specified timelines after the calling of a review conference
and any
amendments are adopted push the date at which a party’s withdrawal from
the Protocol (and potentially the point at
which it could unilaterally start
mining) out further.[43] However,
the political decision to trigger that process would likely be taken some years
earlier. In short, while the time horizon
is not short, the point of potential
instability is not in the far future either.
Does the existence of even
latent rights (let alone the possibility of actual mineral resource activity on
the ECS) by one or a few
fellow ATCPs in parts of the Antarctic Treaty area have
no effect on the sorts of choices the ATS might make about continuing or
ending
the minerals prohibition as we approach 2048? And, what if, despite forbearance
on the ECS in the area south of 60° South,
minerals activity is already
underway on the ECS immediately to its north? Recall that the debate in the
1980s around the acceptability
of mineral resource activity in the Antarctic
occurred before it was underway and with no analogous activity in the
sub-Antarctic.
Vexed as that debate still was, it was plainly much easier to
agree to sacrifice presently unrealised options than it would have
been to cease
an activity already underway. If minerals activity were to commence on that part
of the ECS of a sub-Antarctic island
that was inside the Antarctic Treaty area,
what might this do to the geopolitics of the mining question elsewhere in the
area?
D. Bioprospecting
Even less clarity is evident in relation to
other resource issues not presently subject to any particular ATS obligations,
most obviously
bioprospecting.
‘Bioprospecting’ or
‘biological prospecting’ (the term preferred in ATCM discussions) is
undefined in any
international instrument, including those forming the ATS. A
broad working definition might be:
The search for valuable chemical compounds and genetic materials from plants,
animals and micro-organisms; the extraction and testing
of those compounds and
materials for biological activity; and the research and commercial development
of those that show
activity.[44]
Organisms of
bioprospecting interest are particularly associated with extreme environments.
The activity probably commenced in Antarctica
in the late 1980s, and was first
raised as a policy issue in an ATCM in
1999.[45] There are as yet no
legally binding obligations specifically attaching to bioprospecting in
Antarctica, but two hortatory Resolutions
reflect ATCM expectations and underpin
annual discussion of the issue.[46]
It is not unreasonable to expect that the ATS will (possibly bi-focally at both
the ATCM and annual CCAMLR Commission Meeting) develop
some further guidance in
relation to bioprospecting within the Antarctic Treaty area, and possibly even
some legally binding regulation.
Accordingly, if a coastal state considered that
it alone should regulate bioprospecting activities on that part of its
sub-Antarctic
ECS falling within the Antarctic Treaty area, interesting
questions would arise should somebody wish to bioprospect in the area.
If the
putative bioprospectors are nationals of the coastal state, and there is at this
point no specific regulation of bioprospecting
under the ATS, the situation is
the simple and familiar one of the responsible ATCP exercising jurisdiction on
the basis of nationality.
Where non-national bioprospectors approach the
coastal state for authorisation pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS relating to
marine
scientific research,[47] a
real operational conflict between the regional ATS and the global system of
UNCLOS may arise. If the coastal state grants authorisation,
there may still be
no difficulty if other states see this act as consistent with coastal state
rights and duties in relation to an
area that has been excised (for these
purposes) from the Antarctic Treaty area. If, however, the coastal state
declines requests
from non-nationals, particularly where they are nationals of
another ATCP, then the historically problematical situation of selective
access
to parts of the Antarctic Treaty area may be seen to have arisen. This scenario
is perhaps exacerbated if the coastal state
is at the same time authorising
other bioprospectors, including its own. Of course if one takes the view that
the ECS is no longer
in the Antarctic Treaty area, for these purposes,
potentially the problem does not arise.
More problematic may be the situation
where a bioprospector elects not to seek coastal state authorisation, or
following its denial
proceeds anyway. What does the coastal state do in this
case? Presumably it has open to it the options of interdiction at sea, seizure
of vessels and crews, escort back to its ports and subsequent legal action in
its domestic courts, as we see in relation to illegal
unreported and unregulated
(IUU) fishing. However, IUU enforcement action has, hitherto, only occurred
north of 60° South. Conducting
such enforcement action over the ECS
within the Antarctic Treaty area may raise other considerations. Aside
from the capacity and cost factors, would it be consistent with the
demilitarisation obligations under Article I of the Antarctic Treaty?
E. CCAMLR
Our primary focus here has been on the
interaction between coastal state rights in the ECS and the rights and duties
under the Antarctic
Treaty and the Protocol in the Antarctic Treaty area.
However, the CCAMLR area includes the entire marine area south of 60°
South, as well as the area from 60° South to the Antarctic Convergence, and
consequentially there may also be implications for
this key part of the ATS
regime. There is here, an apparently clear-cut understanding in relation to the
EEZs of sub-Antarctic islands
and the CCAMLR area in CCAMLR’s Article
IV(2) and the ‘Chairman’s Statement’, which has recognised the
right
of coastal states to adopt management regimes for the EEZ that are more
stringent (or more relaxed) than those the CCAMLR Commission
adopts as
Conservation Measures.[48] What has
not been determined, however, is whether this allowance for coastal state
maritime zones applies only to the EEZ and the
juridical continental shelf out
to 200 nautical miles, but also to any ECS beyond this distance.
VI. CONCLUSION
As a result of CLCS recommendations in relation
to the ECS under UNCLOS we have seen for the first time international approval
granted
for particular state rights over areas south of 60° South latitude.
This is a significant international development, and one
that has passed largely
unremarked. However justified in a formal sense as a predictable consequence of
coastal state rights under
UNCLOS, the effect of the CLCS recommendations is to
allow the removal of very substantial areas, in relation to particular
activities,
from the collective governance regime provided by the Antarctic
Treaty system.
So far this has involved only one coastal state (Australia)
and its two sub-Antarctic groups. Whilst submissions of data to the CLCS
by
Argentina and the United Kingdom for the same sub-Antarctic groups may pass into
a state of limbo because of the CLCS’s
Rules of Procedure which prevent it
from examining areas of ECS projected from disputed territory, plainly both of
these states also
sought recognition of the rights they believe themselves to
have as coastal states within the Antarctic Treaty area. These events
involve
the conjunction of two of the most sensitive issues in the Antarctic –
territorial sovereignty and resources. Whatever
else the submissions pursuant to
UNCLOS Article 76 have done, they have given new life to the territorial claims
issue in Antarctica
for the first time in the fifty years during which the
Antarctic Treaty has been in operation.
Officials in claimant states are, in
our experience, inclined to dismiss the concerns raised in this article
concerning ECS areas
in Antarctica (whether relating to the shelf appurtenant to
the continental claims, or the penetrating ECS from sub-Antarctic islands)
as
misplaced and purely academic. One is assured that since state ‘X’
is a longstanding supporter of the Antarctic Treaty
system, it is fanciful to
consider that it would, wearing its coastal state hat, do anything inconsistent
with, let alone subvert,
the ATS. Naturally we too hope this is the case. But
governments and policies change, and legal rights once entrenched are firm
anchors.
The more substantive coastal state argument rests, in our view, on an
optimistic separation of narrow legal perspectives, including
implicitly the
assumption that rights and duties in different arena are commensurable. We
believe that whilst this may be so legally,
in terms of policy and politics this
is not necessarily so. Put bluntly, we see a fundamental conflict with a state
arguing its commitment
to one set of norms under one dispensation (such as the
prohibition of minerals activity under the Protocol, or collective decision
making about Antarctic bioprospecting) whilst actively seeking preclusive rights
to precisely this under another (coastal state rights
over the ECS under
UNCLOS). However finessed, they represent different policy
goals.
Accordingly, it is incumbent on coastal states with sub-Antarctic
islands whose ECS penetrates the Antarctic Treaty area to be clear
about their
intentions. In our view, there is merit to these states making a commitment not
to realise coastal state rights in these
areas for the lifetime of the ATS, that
is to signal clearly that they will not countenance exploitation on this part of
the ECS
outside the four corners of existing ATS arrangements. This entreaty
plainly attaches to Argentina, Australia and the United Kingdom.
Australia in
particular, having secured its rights under UNCLOS is well placed to lead
this,[49] and it may be in its
interests to do so. Australia would be particularly exposed if, because of the
difficulties in considering the
Argentine and United Kingdom submissions, it is
left as the only coastal state with recognised ECS areas south of 60°
South.
The duty to ensure that the domain of the ATS is not progressively
whittled away by the pursuit of national interest is more widely
shared by all
ATCPs.
Although we have here concerned ourselves with only those parts of
the ECS which enter the Antarctic Treaty area, there is plainly
a need to begin
discussion about resource exploitation on the continental shelf of sub-Antarctic
islands more generally. The rationale
for this rests in part on a concern about
the implications for the Antarctic and its international regime, including the
implications
of greater resource exploitation there on the Antarctic, and the
present dispensation that prohibits mineral resource activities.
A basis for
attention to possible effects across the Antarctic Treaty boundary seems to be
provided by the concept of ‘dependent
and associated ecosystems’
found in the Protocol and earlier in CRAMRA. The case for discussion also draws
on concern about
the consequences for the sub-Antarctic islands themselves and
the adjacent marine ecosystems. The fact that these islands are (generally)
subject to undisputed national sovereignty does not mean that there is not an
international interest in what happens there.
Figure 1 - The Approximate Extent of the Continental Margin of Antarctica and sub-Antarctic islands
[†] Adjunct Associate
Professor, Gateway Antarctica Centre for Antarctic Studies and Research,
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
and Research Associate, Institute of
Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Resident in
Canberra.
[*] Senior
Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Australia.
[1] United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3
(entered into force 16 November
1994).
[2] They are: Australia, New
Zealand, Argentina, Norway, France and the United
Kingdom.
[3] The Antarctic
Treaty, opened for signature 1 December 1959, 402 UNTS 71 (entered into
force 23 June 1961).
[4] See A D
Hemmings and T Stephens, ‘Australia’s Extended Continental Shelf:
What Implications for Antarctica?’ (2009) 20 Public Law Review
9.
[5] Given the fast pace of
developments, a cut-off date of 1 September 2009 has been adopted here in
relation to data and other information
relating to Antarctic and subantarctic
ECS issues.
[6] See
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm>
at 22 September 2009). This webpage was last updated on 20 August
2009.
[7] Chile, Preliminary
Information Indicative of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and
Description of the Status of Preparation and Intended
Date of Making a
Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (2009)
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/
clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/chl2009preliminaryinformation.pdf>
at 22 September 2009.
[8]
Australia, Note from the Permanent Mission of Australia to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations Accompanying the Lodgement of
Australia’s
Submission. No. 89/2004 (2004)
<http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_attachment.pdf>
at 22 June 2009.
[9] New Zealand,
Note from the Permanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations.
Note No. NZ-CLCS-TPN-02 (2006) <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nz
l06/nzl_doc_es_attachment.pdf> at 22 June
2009.
[10] United Kingdom,
Note from the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland to the United Nations. Note No. 168/08 (2008) <
http://www.un.org/
Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr08/gbr_nv_9may2008.pdf> at 22
September 2009.
[11] United
Nations, Receipt of the Submission Made by the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental
Shelf (2009) at
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/gbr45_09/gbr_clcs45_2009e.pdf>
at 22 September 2009. Note that ‘According to the submitting State,
“this represents the final partial submission
to the Commission which the
United Kingdom will make to the Commission, prior to the deadline of 13 May
2009.”’
[12] France,
Note from the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations. Note
HR/cl No. 69 (2009) <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra09/fra_note_feb2009e.
pdf> at 22 September
2009.
[13] Argentina, Note
from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the United Nations.
Note N.U. 139/2009/600 (2009) <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_
files/arg25_09/arg_note_2009eng.pdf> at 22 September
2009.
[14] Chile, above n 7, at
19.
[15] Argentina, Submission
to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Executive Summary
(2009) <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_arg_
25_2009.htm> at 22 September 2009. For the English language version see:
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/arg25_09/arg2009e_summary_eng.
pdf>
at 4 December 2009.
[16]
Argentina, above n 13, [2] &
[4].
[17] Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf, Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf, UN Doc CLCS/40/Rev.1. 2001, Annex I, [5]
(‘In cases where a land or maritime dispute exists, the Commission shall
not examine
and qualify a submission made by any of the States concerned in the
dispute. However, the Commission may examine one or more submissions
in the
areas under dispute with prior consent given by all States that are parties to
such a dispute.’)
[18]
Norway, Note from the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations
(2009)
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nor30_09/nor2009_note.pdf>
at 22 September 2009.
[19] The
New Zealand islands, which are well north of the Antarctic Convergence are often
not classified as subantarctic sensu
stricto.
[20] As South
Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands respectively, these islands are also
claimed by (and are currently subject to the
jurisdiction of) the United
Kingdom.
[21] France, above n 12.
[22] United Nations, Receipt
of the Joint submission made by the French Republic and the Republic of South
Africa to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf (2009)
<
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/frazaf34_09/frazaf_clcs34_2009e.
pdf> at 22 September
2009.
[23] See
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_recommendations.htm>
at 22 September 2009.
[25]
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Summary of the
Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in
Regard to the Submission Made by New Zealand
19 April 2006 (2008)
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/
nzl06/nzl_summary_of_recommendations.pdf>
at 22 September 2009.
[26]
Norway, Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf:
Executive Summary, Figure 1, <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nor30_09/nor
2009_executivesummary.pdf> at 22 September
2009.
[27] United Kingdom, Note
No. 84/09 (2009) <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/
submissions_files/arg25_09/clcs_45_2009_los_gbr.pdf> at 22 September
2009; Argentina, Note N.U. No. 290/09/600 (2009) <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/
gbr45_09/arg_re_gbr_clcs_2009e.pdf> at 22 September
2009.
[28] Argentina, above n 15, at
7-9.
[29] United Kingdom,
Partial Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
in relation to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and
the South Sandwich
Islands: Executive Summary (2009), 3 <
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/
gbr45_09/gbr2009fgs_executive%20summary.pdf> at 22 September
2009.
[30] See, for example, the
reference to ‘the special responsibility of the Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Parties’ in the third
recital of the Preamble to the
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, opened for
signature 4 October 1991, 30 ILM 1455 (entered into force 14 January
1998).
[31] This position is
increasingly under pressure. See A D Hemmings, ‘From the New Geopolitics
of Resources to Nanotechnology: Emerging
Challenges of Globalism in
Antarctica’ (2009) 1 Yearbook of Polar Law
55.
[32] C C Joyner,
Antarctica and the Law of the Sea (1992),
107.
[33] Ibid
96.
[34] Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, opened for signature 20
May 1980, 1329 UNTS 47 (entered into force 7 April 1982). Although it may be
noted that this situation is not entirely unprecedented, as part of a 200 nm
exclusive economic zone from the South Sandwich Islands / Islas Sandwich del Sur
extends within the ATA.
[35]
Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities,
opened for signature 2 June 1988, 27 ILM 868 (not in force).
[36] Convention on the
Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, opened for signature 2
June 1988, 27 ILM 868, art 5(2) (not in
force).
[37] A Watts,
International Law and the Antarctic Treaty System (1992),
154-155.
[38]
Ibid.
[39]Antarctic Treaty
Special Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources, Final Report of
the Fourth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral
Resources (1988), 39-40.
[40]
See the statement by New Zealand, the CRAMRA depository: New Zealand Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, Treaties and International Law: Convention on the
Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: Current Status of the
Convention <
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/01-Treaties-for-which-NZ-is-Depositary/0-Antarctic-Mineral-Resource.php>
at 22 September 2009.
[41] From
civil society within ATS states, through the differing interests of State
Parties to the opposition in the Group of
77.
[42] International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, opened for signature 2 December
1946, 161 UNTS 74 (entered into force 10 November
1948).
[43] Protocol on
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, opened for signature 4
October 1991, 30 ILM 1455, art 25(3) and (5) (entered into force 14 January
1998).
[44] A D Hemmings and M
Rogan-Finnemore, ‘Access, Obligations and Benefits: Regulating
Bioprospecting in the Antarctic’, in
M I Jeffrey, J Firestone and K
Bubna-Litic (eds), Biodiversity, Conservation, Law + Livelihoods: Bridging
the North-South Divide, (2008), 529,
537.
[45] For detail on the
bioprospecting policy debate at ATCMs see: A D Hemmings, ‘Biological
Prospecting in the Antarctic Treaty
Area’, (Invited Opening Paper at the
Intergovernmental Meeting of Experts on Biological Prospecting in the Antarctic
Treaty
Area, Baarn, the Netherlands, 3-5 February 2009) and A D Hemmings,
‘A Question of Politics: Bioprospecting and the Antarctic
Treaty
System’, in A D Hemmings and M Rogan-Finnemore (eds), Antarctic
Bioprospecting (2005),
98.
[46] Resolution 7 (2005),
Biological Prospecting in Antarctica; and Resolution 9 (2009),
Collection and Use of Antarctic Biological Material. Both available at
<www.ats.aq> at 22 September
2009.
[47] Part XIII of UNCLOS
requires coastal state consent to be obtained in relation to scientific research
on the 200 nm continental shelf.
For the extended continental shelf coastal
states may not withhold consent except for research within specific and publicly
designated
areas where resource exploration or exploitation activities are
occurring or will occur within a reasonable period of time: UNCLOS,
art
246(6).
[48] Statement by the
Chairman of the Conference on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (1980)
<http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/bd/pt1.pdf>
at 22 September 2009.
[49] J
Jabour, ‘The Australian Continental Shelf: Has Australia’s
High-Latitude Diplomacy Paid Off?’ (2009) 33 Marine Policy 429. See
also Hemmings and Stephens, above n 4.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZYbkIntLaw/2008/30.html