The settlement of disputes under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

Abstract

ABSTRACTSince the Antarctic Treaty came into operation, Antarctic affairs have been characterised by international cooperation. The major issues of potential conflict, namely sovereignty, military activity, and mining, have now been largely removed. As a result, the remaining disagreements between parties have been resolved through consultation and negotiation. No dispute has ever found its way to judicial settlement, with most disagreements usually resolved at an early stage through ATCMs. While there is no reason to suspect that the use of consultation and negotiation will not continue, with the introduction of far more comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment, combined with the significant increase in activity in and around the continent, there is a greater likelihood of situations occurring that clearly breach these principles or give rise to a dispute. In addition, where extensive damage to the environment has already occurred, negotiation may be limited, so that the other mechanisms for settling disputes must be instituted. The dispute procedures of the Protocol, taken almost entirely from CRAMRA, represent the most comprehensive system for the peaceful settlement of disputes arising in any Antarctic instrument to date. However, clear problems such as remedies, enforcement, and uncertainties with respect to standing and liability remain. Until these problems are resolved, all aspects of all disputes cannot be covered, and comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment specified in the Protocol will remain an objective, not a reality.