The concept of security seems an odd one to apply to a continent dedicated to peace and science but the editors make the case that the Antarctic Treaty itself actually provided the first security construct for the continent. Their approach has been to propose that security in the 21st century context is multidimensional and needs to be considered from a variety of view points, which will often seem somewhat tenuous in an essentially uninhabited area. Much of the book is based on “what ifs” and concerned with legal approaches which may seem of little interest to scientists but there are important elements in many chapters for those interested in the way in which the continent is managed. Indeed this is an important volume attempting to ensure Antarctica is adequately connected with developments elsewhere in the world. There are 17 chapters, the first and last by the editors, and of the 14 authors all except three come from Australasia.
The three editors set the scene in Chapter 1, arguing that it is appropriate and necessary to consider security as a series of regimes covering state security, Antarctic Treaty regime security, maritime security, environmental security, resources security and finally human security. Whilst it is clearly true that Antarctic security has evolved from the international tensions of the 1950s to what is now the largest demilitarized zone on Earth I remain unconvinced that their expansion of the application of security terminology to all these other fields is really justified.
In Chapter 2 Nasu provides an analytical framework for law and policy on Antarctic security, a chapter very much devoted to his general contention that almost anything can be justifiably considered in a security context. Much of this chapter is not about Antarctica but a much more general discourse on the way security issues have been developed through the United Nations or with respect to international health issues like AIDS, concluding that international law for Antarctica needs to more clearly recognize and address the extra-territorial issues.
Donald Rothwell provides an interesting analysis of the security aspects of the Treaty in Chapter 3 beginning with a brief history of its origins but without mentioning the secret preparatory meetings in Washington. Here the reader will feel on more familiar ground as he discusses the limitations on military use in Articles I and V, the territorial provisions of Article IV and the inspection regime to underpin trust between states. He concludes that the ATS has dealt effectively with various challenges but that the Japanese whaling programme is a security stumbling block, an unreasonable conclusion in the context of the ATS since this is an issue specifically for the International Whaling Commission and not the Treaty fora. I felt that he should have explained why states such as Namibia, Cook Islands and Mauritius participate in CCAMLR and not the Treaty, as this is closely tied to economic self interest rather than scientific or political interest.
Chapter 4 by Duncan French examines what he believes is the inequity in the way bioprospecting has been addressed by the Treaty, the “dichotomy between rhetoric and aspiration on one hand and political reality on the other “and the future incorporation of global principles and values into the Treaty legislation. Whilst this may appeal to international lawyers most scientists will find it difficult to see as an important issue.
Meanwhile Alan Hemmings uses Chapter 5 to attack what he considers is the complacency over Article IV as the solution to territorial security, remarking on how states go to considerable lengths to avoid discussing the issue and examining some of the newer issues that reflect on possible changes, including the old chestnut that there are now 193 states in the UN as against the fact that there were only 82 when the Treaty was signed. Given the fissiparous nature of territorial boundaries over the past 100 years this is neither surprising nor relevant as any state can acceded to the Treaty. That most of the new mini-countries created over the past 50 years have not joined is clearly a political decision on their part and should not be construed as relevant to the territorial claims. The fact that some states dispute the claims is surely nothing new in a world beset with territorial difficulties like Kosovo, Kashmir, Palestine, the Indo-Chinese Border, etc. Hemmings has provided a very useful drawing together of a diverse literature on the topic of territoriality and, even whilst disagreeing with some of his conclusions, I welcome his analysis of one of the taboo areas for Treaty discussions.
In Chapter 6 Klaus Dodds examines the Antarctic Peninsula and the three competing claims. In a useful overview of the history there were some points I would dispute. The title British Antarctic Survey was used for the successor to FIDS because the scientific work of the organization was survey at that time - not simply map making for political objectives as he implies but geological and biological surveys to understand the continent and its flora and fauna. I would also dispute his contention that the Treaty did not introduce a new security regime when it is clear that the inspection procedures were treated as just that by the USA and the USSR. He maintains that the Falklands conflict was a warning that the Antarctic was contested but since it did not disturb the Treaty meetings nor did the conflict spill over into Antarctic waters I cannot see how this can be true. His remark that there is an unwillingness to collaborate over logistical operations between Chile, Argentina and the UK is interesting since the problem is principally one created by Argentina who rigidly control access to Antarctica through their military logistics rather than the UK which uses civilian ships for logistics. The British opposition to Argentina as the location for the AT Secretariat was based on the general principle that no claimant state should host the facility rather than simply opposition to Argentina. Whilst it is true that the annual Antarctic cruises of the Royal Naval hydrographic vessels (HMS Endurance, Scott and now Protector) clearly do have a political significance the improvement of charts, especially for the Peninsula area, is in the interests of all users as well as the UK, although Dodds sees this activity purely as a political initiative.
Sam Bateman discusses the possibility that the Antarctic could become militarized, basing much of his projections on what he sees as the increasingly assertive role of China and the role that Antarctic stations could play in monitoring via satellites. He asserts that the inspection regime is essentially perfunctory, the use of private contractors can mask military activities (especially gathering signal intelligence) and some research may have military applications. Since conspiracy theories always have supporters I am sure some will find this chapter alarming. And when Rothwell examines law enforcement and Foster the history of resource extraction there is little new in factual terms, but they do bring some diverse material together.
Clearly the delimitation of continental shelves under the Law of the Sea had the potential to cause considerable difficulties in the Treaty forum. Weber's chapter 10 describes the various activities, including the relatively aggressive approaches by Australia and Argentina to safeguard their future claims and the responses from others, but concludes that this has not significantly disturbed the governance. Joyner's chapter on bioprospecting illustrates clearly the developments over the last decade but fails to note that all attempts to introduce any of the elements from the Convention on Biological Diversity have foundered because the USA has not signed it.
The chapter by Haward on marine resources deals with a serious security area with illegal fishing, surveillance using military satellites and the use of the armed forces to make arrests. The interactions of CCAMLR with the Treaty and with the IWC, as well as the impacts of climate change on the Southern Ocean make this an area of continuing tension, as shown by the recent negotiations for the Ross Sea protected area. The chapter by Jabour on maritime security is timely given the recent completion of the IMO Polar Shipping Code. She provides a ranked list of threats to the marine environment and discusses port state responsibilities, a vexed question for the Treaty Parties. Chaturvedi raises issues with the way climate change is perceived and acted upon by the Treaty Parties. He fails to remind the reader that for many years the USA effectively blocked progress on climate change because of the policy of George W Bush to deny it was happening. As he notes the SCAR contribution clearly sets out what is known but so far the Parties seem not to have found any new ways of reacting to a phenomena in Antarctica which is mired in international disagreement elsewhere.
Scott's chapter examines science and its role as well as picking up on the interactions between the Treaty regimes and other global agreements, and how that blurs lines of responsibility. I appreciated the way she illustrated the fragility of the EIA procedures using the Lake Vostok case. She provokes dispute by suggesting that the Treaty should directly oversee research proposals and activities, have veto powers over the acceptability of CEEs, proactively manage bioprospecting and actively seek closer working relationships with other relevant regimes such as the IMO and IWC. Quite how this will be achieved is not suggested. The chapter on whaling by Mossop attacks the Treaty over its determination to avoid all whaling activities and suggests that this will eventually weaken its authority as long as there is no solution to Japanese activities. Indeed in the final chapter the editors ask if it is time to change the membership rules for the ATCM, to accept that many non-signatories may have political interests in the area and recognize that the status quo may not provide the protection required for the future.
This is a major work which brings the many strands of Antarctic activities together under the nebulous concept of “security”. Whilst I remain unconvinced about much of the “what if” approaches the book contains some very useful overviews and some thought provoking ideas which challenge the Treaty Parties in several ways.
