Cooperation In Antarctica Research Articles

Development of Antarctic Scientific Research and International Scientific Cooperation of China

The purpose of this article is to summarise the current attitude of the Chinese government to Antarctic scientifc research and to characterise Antarctic scientifc research carried out by China as a non-Antarctic country by reviewing the performance of Antarctic scientifc expeditions and scientifc research in China over the last forty years.The author approaches the study from the perspective of three aspects. Firstly, there is a reviewof Chinese government documents of recent years on China’s activities in Antarctica. Particular attention is paid to scientifc research and the Chinese government’s attitude to China’s research activities in Antarctica. Secondly, the history of the development of Chinese scientifc research in the Antarctic is considered. The path traveled by China is described, from sending the frst expeditionary group to Antarctica to the creation of research institutes, higher educational institutions and participation in international cooperation and scientifc programs. Finally, the characterization of the frst two aspects allows the author to analyze the achievements, shortcomings and peculiarities of China’s research activities and international cooperation in Antarctica. The author suggests the relevance of scientifc cooperation and development of research activities in this region from the point of view of China’s strategic interests.The review of ofcial documents made public by the Chinese government in recent years allows the author to use the method of historical analysis to systematically summarize the country’s research activities in Antarctica and study the history of scientifc research. The paper also applies such methods of scientifc research as comparative analysis and statistical analysis.

International co-operation in Antarctica: the influence of regional groups

ABSTRACT International co-operation, with the aim to facilitate research in the Antarctic, plays a pivotal role for logistic support and for the deployment of scientific projects run by multiple countries. Co-operative activities can either be intra-continental or external; meaning co-operation based in Antarctica or co-operation that builds on the geographical and political boundaries of every country and governmental policies, respectively. The current situation sees three extra-Antarctic regional groups active in Antarctica, which find their geographical origin, in Asia, Europe and South America. Each group is represented by the Asian Forum for Polar Sciences, the European Polar Board and the Reunión de Administradores de Programas Antárticos Latinoamericanos, respectively, which are operating through their member entities. The Asian Forum for Polar Sciences and the European Polar Board members have demonstrated interest in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and the Reunión de Administradores de Programas Antárticos Latinoamericanos’s countries focus their scientific and science-support activities only in the Antarctic Treaty Area. This study analyses the concepts of region and regionalism and how regional co-operations in Antarctica are driving ‘big’ science projects, which a country might not have the capacity or capability to conduct on its own. It also discusses the breadth, both geographical and biogeographic, that scientific research can obtain through regional co-operation.

Cuando la frontera dialoga: Singularidades de la relación argentino-chilena en las últimas décadas

El trabajo aborda las relaciones bilaterales entre la Argentina y Chile en las últimas décadas resaltando el potencial de sus nuevas relaciones fronterizas. Sostiene que el amplio abanico de agentes gubernamentales, entidades políticas subestatales y locales y los diferentes canales de vinculación transgubernamental, han dotado a dicha frontera de una dinámica singular, connotándola como espacio de cooperación. El artículo es descriptivo-reflexivo y se organiza alrededor de una serie de preguntas acerca de la búsqueda sostenida de integración fronteriza argentino-chilena desde los años noventa y la construcción de una singular institucionalidad top-down y bottom-up. De la variedad de vínculos existentes, selecciona algunos ejemplos significativos como los Comités de Integración, la conformación de la Zona de Integración Centro-Oeste de América del Sur (Zicosur) y la cooperación argentino-chilena en la Antártida. Asimismo, subraya el contenido integracionista del Tratado de Maipú (2009) y la institucionalidad que cobran las diferentes instancias de diálogo bilateral.

Governing the antipodes: international cooperation in Antarctica and the Arctic

ABSTRACTThe Arctic and the Antarctic appear to be polar opposites with regard to many matters, including the systems of governance that have evolved in the two regions. Antarctica is demilitarised, closed to economic development, open to a wide range of scientific activities, and subject to strict environmental regulations under the terms of the legally binding Antarctic Treaty of 1959 along with several supplementary measures that together form the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The Arctic, by contrast, is a theatre of military operations, a site of largescale industrial activities, a homeland for sizable groups of indigenous peoples, and a focus of growing concern regarding the environmental impacts of human activities. The Arctic Council, the principal international body concerned with governance at the regional level, operates under the terms of a ministerial declaration that is not legally binding; it lacks the authority to make formal decisions about matters of current interest. Digging a little deeper, however, one turns up some illuminating similarities between the governance systems operating in the antipodes. In this article, I pursue this line of thinking, setting forth a range of observations relating to (i) the history of governance in the antipodes, (ii) institutional innovations occurring in these regions, (iii) issues of membership, (iv) jurisdictional concerns, (v) the role of science, (vi) relations with the UN system, (vii) institutional interplay, and (viii) the adaptiveness of governance systems in the face of changing circumstances. The governance systems for the polar regions are not likely to converge anytime soon. Nevertheless, this analysis should be of interest not only to those concerned with the fate of Antarctica and the Arctic but also to those seeking to find effective means of addressing needs for governance in other settings calling for governance without government.

U.S. and Russia sign agreements to cooperate in Antarctica and Beringia

U.S. secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Cooperation in Antarctica and issued a Joint Statement on Pursuing a Transboundary Area of Shared Beringian Heritage, which is related to a segment of the Bering Strait, at an 8 September ceremony in Vladivostok, Russia. The Antarctica MOU strengthens cooperation and improves coordination of bilateral policies, science, logistics, search and rescue, training, and public outreach in Antarctica. “We are formally deepening our scientific cooperation in Antarctica, a continent with vast opportunities for research,” Clinton said. “Scientists from both our countries will work together to explore Antarctica's terrain, study the effects of climate change, and cooperate on a range of issues to better understand and protect our shared environment.” She added that U.S. and Russian officials and scientists will work together to enforce the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, including inspecting foreign facilities and looking for violations of the treaty and environmental commitments.

Understanding and protecting the world's biodiversity: The role and legacy of the SCAR programme “Evolution and Biodiversity in the Antarctic”

Current global changes are prompting scientists and governments to consider the risk of extinction of species inhabiting environments influenced by ice. Concerted, multidisciplinary, international programmes aimed at understanding life processes, evolution and adaptations in the Polar Regions will help to counteract such an event by protecting polar life and ecosystems. There is a long tradition of international scientific cooperation in Antarctica that provides a strong foundation for such approaches. While basic understanding is emerging, we still largely lack predictive biological models, and need to achieve further integration amongst biological and non-biological disciplines. The ongoing SCAR Science Research Programme, “Evolution and Biodiversity in the Antarctic (EBA)” has successfully carried out its crucial role of providing an overarching umbrella for SCAR research in Life Sciences. Now is the time for aiming to progress beyond this important role, and the Antarctic biology community is proposing two programmes, focussed on distinct but complementary aspects of polar biology and working across marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments: “State of the Antarctic Ecosystem (AntEco)”, and “Antarctic Thresholds — Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation (AnT-ERA)”. These programmes are the legacy of EBA, and they are key to understanding and protect Antarctic biodiversity.

Ingenious and innocuous? Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty as imperialism

The fiftieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Antarctic Treaty on 23 June 1961 provides opportunity for assessment of this international instrument. This paper calls for more nuanced reading of the lead up to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and of the impact, in terms of relative gains, of the ATS on the fundamental issue of sovereignty. In accepting the utility of a postcolonial lens on international cooperation in Antarctica, the paper proposes that the history of the international politics of Antarctica can better be viewed not in terms of one, but of three, successive waves of Antarctic imperialism, the third of which is the Antarctic Treaty itself.

Why did we get an International Space Station before an International Antarctic Station?

Despite public projection of, and formal commitments in the Antarctic Treaty and subsequent instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System to, international scientific cooperation and the sharing of facilities, international stations are scarce. Of 110 current main facilities in the Antarctic Treaty area, only two are joint stations, and both involve only two states. International scientific cooperation in Antarctica is well developed, but this appears not to ordinarily involve joint facilities. This seems anomalous considering potential advantages in scientific cooperation, associated logistic effort and cost, and lowered environmental footprint. Moreover, notwithstanding the manifest strategic /national security interests entailed in space capabilities, some of the same states engaged in Antarctica have managed to collaborate on an International Space Station. The critical factor appears to be the unresolved situation around territorial sovereignty and consequential jurisdiction in Antarctica. So far as it relates to stations, scientific cooperation appears secondary to national autonomy in the selection of locations for other reasons.

Who wins in U.S.-Soviet science ventures?

Few international undertakings have been more dramatic than the Apollo-Soyuz handshake, more sustained than cooperation in Antarctica. Despite U.S. worries about technology transfer, the proposals are becoming even more ambitious.

Legal and Political Status of Antarctica: ABSTRACT

Interest in the possible hydrocarbon and other mineral resource potential of Antarctica has emerged as forecasts of resource scarcity stimulate the search for new sources of supply. In addition to geologic, environmental, economic, and technologic factors, the political and legal status of Antarctica will have an important influence on determining if and when mineral-resource activities take place there. In 1959, the 12 nations then engaged in scientific research activities in Antarctica concluded the Antarctic Treaty. Seven of those nations claim territorial sovereignty over portions of Antarctica; five nations, including the United States, neither assert nor recognize such claims. The Antarctic Treaty establishes a basis for international cooperation in Antarctica. It s ts aside Antarctica and the waters south of 60° S lat. for peaceful purposes only and guarantees the freedom of scientific research throughout Antarctica. The treaty provides for regular meetings of the parties enjoying consultative status (the original 12 plus 1) to recommend measures to their governments in furtherance of the principles and purposes of the treaty. For those matters it deals with, the treaty holds in abeyance the respective positions of claimants and non-claimants to territorial sovereignty. However, it does not address the question of resource activities in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have been engaged in discussions of a possible regime to govern exploration and exploitation of Antarctic mineral resources. The parties have recommended th t exploration and exploitation activities not take place while progress is being made toward the timely adoption of an agreed regime. End_of_Article - Last_Page 524------------

International Cooperation in Antarctica — The Next Decade

International Cooperation in Antarctica — The Next Decade