SCAR Open Science Conference 2024 Report
Katharina Heinrich1 and Marco Volpe2
Kobe PCRC Fellows funded by KAKENHI 21K18124
ATS Resilience under Anthropocene
1Junior Researcher, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland and Ph.D. candidate, University of Helsinki, Finland 2Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of Social Science, University of Lapland, Finland
Session 46: Consensus building based on best available science under Antarctic Treaty System (Co-convenors: Akiho Shibata and Natasha Gardiner)
1. General description and summary of the session
The session was framed around the topic of consensus building on the basis of best available science (BAS) under the ATS, which is a well-established concept of environmental decision-making and lies at the core for the conservation of Antarctic resources/biodiversity. In light of increasing climate change impacts and rising geopolitical tensions, however, the consensus-based decision-making process often proves strenuous and challenging.
The presentations covered a broad spectrum of perspectives, including newly arising challenges, such as considerations on potential geoengineering projects and the opening of newly exposed marine areas linked to increased anthropogenic warming. Speakers also addressed enablers and barriers to the science-policy interface in the context of the ATCM and CEP and China’s approach to the establishment of ASPAs under the ATS framework.
A common aspect raised throughout the session was linked to the relevance of science for Antarctic governance, which is provided by bodies such as the Scientific Committee to CCAMLR, a number of specific Working Groups, as well as other experts and scientific bodies, such as SCAR.
The discussion that arose from the presentations was extremely lively and stimulating. Legal aspects of geoengineering projects raised multiple concerns about their applicability in both polar regions. The gap between the advancement of many geoengineering projects and the limited understanding of potential benefits, social impacts and the legal framework needed for their implementation made the discussion extremely timely and created room for further discussion and investigation. Beyond that, the discussion also focused on the issues surrounding the concept of BAS, as it has been used by member states on numerous occasions to hinder the establishment of conservation measures and protected areas, (potentially) concealing their political and economic agendas.
2. Presentation: Consensus in the absence of best available science in times of change: Conservation Measure 24-04 (Katharina Heinrich)
The presentation “Consensus in the absence of best available science in times of change: Conservation Measure 24-04” focused on the need for a more robust and swift decision-making process under CCAMLR, which accounts for changes in the marine environment. While CCAMLR has been praised for its success in establishing the World’s largest MPA in 2016 and is seen as a frontrunner of the implementation of a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach, it does not come without its challenges and has also been subject to more critical voices considering whether it is still fit for purpose in its current form. Especially, the decision-making process for the establishment of conservation and long-term protection measures has been strenuous due to the lack of consensus, a prerequisite for CCAMLR’s decision-making, which is, in turn, based on the best available science (BAS). Difficulties in reaching consensus under CCAMLR are linked to different aspects, such as scientific uncertainty or the lack of scientific information as an argument to delay management decisions. Evidently, this hampers efficient and proactive management and delays decision-making.
Against this background, the presentation explored to what extent the mechanism and aspects of Conservation Measure 24-04 on the establishment of Special Areas for Scientific Study (SASS) in newly exposed marine areas following ice-shelf retreat or collapse (2016), provides an opportunity to proactively address concerns surrounding the robustness of scientific information or the lack of scientific evidence for data-poor regions, which are known obstacles for the establishment of long-term protection measures. Especially, its interim nature awarding an area with protection by closing it to marine activities, to review existing science and undertake further scientific research to understand ecosystem processes in view of climate change impacts, was highlighted as a relevant and useful mechanism. Even though CM24-04 offers a perspective towards a more dynamic and proactive approach to marine management in view of climate change impacts, also beyond the Southern Ocean, it is not without its challenges. Therefore, a critical perspective on the measure was offered to identify aspects requiring further consideration and improvement to positively shape CCAMLR’s management approach in a changing and dynamic future.
3. Presentation: China’s Polar Science Diplomacy: The Case of ASPAs (Marco Volpe)
The presentation, “China’s Polar Science Diplomacy: The Case of ASPAs,” explored China’s involvement in the polar regions by examining the recent discussions surrounding the establishment of ASPAs. Although there is no internationally recognized definition of Science Diplomacy, many experts agree that it involves using scientific cooperation to build bridges and enhance relationships between countries. The right to conduct scientific research and to engage in international cooperation are among the foundational principles of the Antarctic Treaty, and the interaction between these principles justifies the focus on ASPAs, which are regulated by Article III of Annex V of the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty. However, reaching a consensus on the establishment of these areas presents its own set of challenges.
In this context, the presentation analyzed China’s stance on the establishment of ASPAs, as discussed in recent ATCMs. It drew on findings from ongoing content analysis based on semi-structured interviews with scientists and state representatives from China, Italy, and South Korea—three countries involved in establishing ASPA 178. The results indicate a transparent discussion among the parties, leading to a smooth process in agreeing on the values to be protected, the size of the marine area to be included, and the exclusion of historical sites from the specially protected area. Each party values the specific expertise that cooperating countries can contribute to expanding scientific knowledge on the Adélie penguin colony, Skua colony, and the paleontological features of the site. Additionally, the presentation discussed two other cases where China expressed concerns: the inclusion of prohibited zones within the ASPA proposed by Belgium in parts of the Western Sør Rondane Mountains, Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica, and the inclusion of marine environments within ASPA 139 proposed by the USA. In the first case, China raised concerns about using prohibited zones as a mechanism to protect areas by preventing any human presence, which, in China's view, could impede or even halt scientific research and monitoring. In the second case, China questioned the sufficiency of the scientific data supporting the inclusion of the marine area and suggested that the proposal be referred to CCAMLR for review.
China's ambivalent approach reflects its growing engagement in Antarctic science, alongside a more vocal stance on scientific matters. This mirrors not only its support for global governance but also a more assertive role in international science diplomacy.
I found the discussion that followed the presentation particularly intriguing. Stronger and closer cooperation among ASPA managing parties was emphasized, as my own research on ASPA 178 suggests that current cooperation mainly involves discussing and revising management plans, with parties separately pursuing their research agendas without jointly conducting scientific research. The role of China as a global power and its increasingly assertive position within the Antarctic regime was also thoroughly discussed. In this context, it is crucial to understand China’s domestic policy, where advancements in research and technology have been prioritized, even over economic growth—which has been the top priority for China’s leadership for decades. This shift, coupled with a more sophisticated diplomatic approach, positions China as a key player in Antarctic science and underscores the need for future research on China’s stance towards the implementation of measures and specially protected areas within the consensus-based system of the ATS.
4. Attending SCAR OSC 2024 - impressions and reflections
The SCAR OSC 2024 conference was attended by a large number of natural scientists, which is at the core of Antarctic research. However, disciplines such as social sciences, art and law were well represented within the program of the four-day conference, showing the links between the different disciplines in Antarctic research and exploring the interconnection between legal, political and social aspects of doing science in Antarctica. The many presentations and lively discussions throughout the conference highlighted the potential challenges Antarctic governance is facing in the future, paving the way for a strengthened cooperation nexus in the face of new developments of Antarctic science. Attending the conference, its plenaries and session, reemphasized the relevance of increased Antarctic research in view of climate change impacts and the need for strengthened cooperation between nations and researchers. Thus, it was extremely valuable in order to connect with researchers discussing issues, concerns but also perspectives for future research and management of the region. The conference was well organized and left enough room to explore the art exhibitions and installations, attend book presentations and workshops, network with old and new colleagues and enjoy the view of the Volcán Villarica overlooking the city. (August 31, 2024)
Director Shibata will make three presentations in two breakout sessions. All dates and times indicated below are those of Chilean Standard Time (-13 JST).
August 20 (Tue) Block 2 (14:00-15:30)
Session 33 Antarctic Governance
Akiho Shibata “The law, politics and science in the Consultative Party acknowledgment process: A worrisome precedent at Kochi”
August 23 (Fri) Block 2 (11:45-13;15)
Akiho Shibata, with the assistance of Ridzanna Abdulgafur “An introduction: Institutional framework to implement Antarctic governance based on best available science”
Akiho Shibata “A reality? Giant underwater curtains in the Antarctic and Legal issues potentially raised during its early phase”
Co-organized with Korea’s KOPRI and Indian host government NCPOR, Kobe PCRC is convening an Antarctic governance seminar on May 20, the first day of 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in Kochi, India. Because it is held inside the conference venue, in-person access is limited to ATCM delegates, but it will be live streamed online! Panel 1 will discuss the current Antarctic governance challenges in light of “science diplomacy” and “diversifying voices”. Panel 2 will discuss our (current generation’s) responsibilities and commitments towards the future generation, taking up the topics such as globalized Antarctica, environmental liability, tourism and safety. Please access the Indian ATCM host website for details including online access URL. https://www.atcm46india.in/panel
Director Akiho Shibata has co-authored a Guest Editorial with two early career scholars Yelena Yermakova (Princeton University) and Rebecca Hingley (Australian Antarctic Division) on "The policy-law-science nexus in the Antarctic" in Antarctic Science, a WoS journal of Cambridge University Press. This is a subsection of a Special Collection “Antarctic Humanities and Social Science Scholarship” under the auspices of SCAR Standing Committee on Humanities and Social Science (SC-HASS). For this subsection, the three guest editors invite full papers that would examine how science-based decision-making is operationalized within the Antarctic context by studying the nexus between policy, law and science.
This subsection brings together the results of such ongoing research on the policy-law-science nexus in the Antarctic. An analysis of the interplay between policy, law and science within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is crucial to our understanding of how this regime can and should evolve to ensure a sustainable and resilient future in the region. It can focus on the analysis of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), and/or the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), as an analysis of institutional structures is essential to understanding how policy, law, and science operate within Antarctic governance. Link to the Special Collection.
Prof. Kees Bastmeijer, Visiting Professor of Kobe University under 2023 Strategic International Collaboration Grant Type C, is our guest speaker at Antarctic Study Group online meeting, with scientists from Japan's National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) and other members. Often, discussions on the domestic implementation of instruments that form part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) focus on the implementation of binding law. This study, instead, is interested in whether agreed "soft law" instruments, in particular non-binding Resolutions adopted by the Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, are also receiving attention within countries, for instance when developing policy or planning and conducting activities in Antarctica. Recently, the Netherlands has finalized an inventory of all ATCM Resolutions to determine which Resolutions could play a role in assessing Dutch activities in Antarctica. Other countries may also have experiences in "implementing Resolutions" and currently no overview exists of such practices. Against this backdrop, Prof. Bastmeijer aims to identify "best practices" in how non-legally binding Resolutions may receive attention at the level of party states.
On May 30, 2023, with Mr. Evan Bloom from Wilson Center, USA, Prof. Kees Bastmeijer, University of Groningen, and chaired by Prof. Timo Koivurova, University of Lapland, Director Shibata talked on the challenges facing the Antarctic governance and possible solutions. The seminar featured many prominent speakers on major environmental challenges in Antarctica, including marine conservation; Antarctic policy perspectives from the point of view of the foreign affairs community; Antarctic science challenges including climate change; and academic views on challenges the Treaty System has faced in the past 25 years. The Antarctic governance session starts around 1:43:00 of the YouTube video. A presentation files Director Shibata prepared for his talk but did not actually use during his talk is attached. Enjoy!
Director Shibata’s presentation files
Ayako Okubo “Interplay management in the Antarctic regime complex” Zia Madani “The Resilience of the Antarctic Treaty System in light of Russian Invasion of Ukraine” Akiho Shibata “Aggression and the Antarctic Treaty System: The End of Antarctic Exceptionalism?” Maiko Raita “Current Development of Port State Measures in CCAMLR: Interaction with FAO Port State Measures Agreement” Sakiko Hataya “Legal Implications of China’s Proposal for an Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA) at Kunlun Station at Dome A”
Naomi Harada “Basic research on the functioning of marine life in the Southern Ocean and its relationship to science policy” Osamu Inagaki “The Development of Concept ‘Cumulative Impacts’ under the Antarctic Treaty System” Shigeru Aoki “Intensive observation campaign off Sabrina Coast, East Antarctica, to predict the future ice loss” Hitomi Kimura “Role of SCAR in Climate Science Diplomacy under the Ukraine Crisis”
Kobe PCRC and National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) jointly established the Study Group on Antarctic Science and International Relations (南極国際動向研究会) in September 2018 in order to discuss emerging Antarctic scientific and legal/policy issues amongst its members composed of Antarctic natural scientists, logistic experts, international lawyers, international relations scholars and government officials from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education and Science, and Ministry of Environment. On September 14, after three years of pause due to COVID-19, the Group members came together again at Sophia University in Tokyo for its 13th meeting. This project is funded by Mitsubishi Foundation (2020-23) and JSPS KAKENHI project “The Resilience of the Antarctic Treaty System under the Anthropocene ” (2021-26).
The theme of the 13th meeting was “The Antarctic Treaty System after the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Lessons from Berlin ATCM and future challenges”, and Prof. Kees Bastmeijer from University of Groningen, The Netherlands and a long-time member of the Dutch delegation to the ATCM including the last Berlin meeting in May-June 2022 was our special guest speaker. After reviewing the achievements and some of the difficulties encountered during the Berlin meeting, the Group discussed the implication of Russian invasion to the Antarctic Treaty and its governance system, including the ATCM. The Group then went onto the (near) future topics requiring strategic attention, considering the fact that Japan will host the ATCM in 2026, after Finland, India and Italy. Those topics included (1) Antarctic tourism; (2) liability annex and the next steps; (3) future (post-COVID) ATCM Style; and (4) other issues such as bioprospecting, transparency of the ATS, the role of science and SCAR in the ATS, and the increasing need of integrated policy responses to both CCAMLR and ATCM. Based on our customary practice of applying Chatham House Rule, a brief report was produced by Director Shibata and made publicly available (available for downloading).
Some of the participating members enjoyed more casual talks with Prof. Bastmeijier during lunch at a nice French restaurant and during a light dinner at Japanese Izakaya both near Yotsuya Station. The Group rediscovered the importance and the value of face-to-face academic discussions.
The 2021 biennial conference of the Standing Committee on Humanities and Social Sciences (SC-HASS) under Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) was held for the first time in its history in Asia, hosted by Kobe PCRC on 18 and 19 November 2021. Having the conference in Japan spurred participation of both international scientists as well as a wide spectrum of Japanese experts and scientists. Director Shibata being a Steering Committee member of the SC-HASS offered to host this meeting in the summer of 2020, hoping that the COVID-19 would have been dissipated by then. However, after thorough review of the situation, it was decided to convene the meeting partially hybrid and the rest entirely online. This report seeks to reflect on two of the panels entitled Japan Session and Japan Antarctic Policy , respectively.
*2021 SC-HASS conference webpage https://www.research.kobe-u.ac.jp/gsics-pcrc/2021scarschass.org/
Japan Session was the customary event of the SC-HASS conference trying to attract the attention of the local participants, and was conducted in Japanese with simultaneous interpretation into English.* This panel was particularly interesting as all its members have experiences in participating in Japan’s Antarctic Research Expedition (JARE), providing non-traditional perspectives on the Antarctic research activities. Professor Shin Murakoshi, a psychologist, made a keynote presentation on “The Antarctic as a Natural Laboratory: A Case of Cognitive Sciences". Ms. Yumi Nakayama, a journalist, talked about “JARE’s first step: Journalist enthusiasm developed into national ebullience”. Ms. Yoriko Ikuta, a high-school teacher, spoke on the topic: “Teachers’ dispatch program under JARE and inquiry-based learning”. The panel was chaired by Professor Akiho Shibata, an international lawyer.
Having studied risk cognition for 20 years, Prof. Murakoshi examines cognitive science of people’s psychological adaptation in Antarctica, given that people working therein are isolated in certain spaces. While psychology studies in Antarctica are well-established in some Antarctic active nations such as in the United States and Australia, Murakoshi hinted there are certain “cultural” aspects in risk recognition in different nations and societies, and that his studies on Japanese personnel at Syowa Station is unique in the field. Noting the fact that Shibata within 2016-17 JARE program and Murakoshi within 2017-18 JARE program have already paved the way for non-natural scientists’ engagement with JARE, Murakoshi said it is now more important to scrutinize the substance of such humanities and social science studies in the Antarctica.
Yumi Nakayama is a polar journalist who works for the Asahi Shimbun a Newspaper Company with long-standing engagement in the Antarctic and within JARE. While canvassing the pivotal engagement of Asahi Shimbun in the initial phase of JARE’s establishment as a matter that has not been widely reported worldwide particularly from a media perspective, Nakayama states that when Nobu Shirase, the renowned Japanese Antarctic explorer, sought to recruit expedition members to accompany him to Antarctica, Asahi Shimbun was the newspaper that not only published his recruitment advertisement but donated 5000 Japanese Yen to his expedition. This further strengthened by a proposal led by Asahi Shimbun in 1955 to the Science Council of Japan pertaining to the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year (IGY) which led to acknowledgement of JARE as a national project supported by Asahi.* At the same year, “the Antarctic Expedition operations office” within Asahi was launched that had considerable impact on the support received by the Japanese public for JARE. Asahi Shimbun not only supported first JARE logistically by sending Cessna aircraft and helicopter in 1957 but has seamlessly contributed to various aspects JARE ever since. Nakayama concluded by pointing out that how important the collaborations between researchers and journalists are in order to convey the knowledge and information to the next generations.
*Ken Nagata and Kenji Ito, “’Big Science’ by a Newspaper Company: The Asahi Shimbun Company and Japan's Antarctic Expedition in the International Geophysical Year”, Nempo Kagaku, Gijutu and Shakai (Japanese Journal of Science, Technology and Society), Vol.25 (2016), 25-47 [in Japanese].
Yoriko Ikuta is a science teacher at a Nara prefectural high school, who joined the 58th JARE in 2016-17 under its teachers’ dispatch program, and her presentation addresses methodology of science studies in high schools. The aim of the above-said program is not only to publicize JARE activities, but to improve the quality of teachers so they could act as facilitators in the learning process of the students. Teachers would further involve students in the Antarctic inquiry-based learning process through which not only students would become more interested in the science in the Antarctic, but would depict deeper perception of the subject matter. She concluded by hoping for continuation of the teachers’ dispatch programs in JARE.
This panel was followed by an active discussion amongst the panelists and two online participants posing questions: one asking the engagement of artists in JARE, and another inquiring the ways in which to make the general public more interested in the polar issues.
The panel on Japan’s Antarctic Policy addressed “Japan's policy and diplomacy for the Antarctic environmental and resource management” by Ayako Okubo, an associate professor of international relations at Tokai University, Japan, as well as “Interface of Climate and Technology in the Antarctica and Japanese Policy: A Middle Power Standpoint” by Suprita Suman, a political scientist from India. This panel shed light on issues pertaining to the role of Japan in international forums, its position towards Antarctica and its environmental issues.
According to Okubo, Japan's position, especially regarding the environment, has changed over the decades, prioritizing the stability of the Antarctic Treaty over national interests. Among the economic interests that Japan had was the access of its nationals to the exploitation of minerals and living marine resources. Okubo argues that, subsequent to a shift in policy by the UK and the US in 1990 to accept the mineral ban, Japan also changed its position to support an indefinite ban on the exploitation of minerals in April 1991. Okubo further argues that this shift in policy by Japan is consistent with a plausible explanatory factor of middle power diplomacy aiming at engaging in institution building and pursuing a stable international governance of the Antarctic issues for Japan. Okubo concludes by arguing that although Japan has not been a leader in the conservation of the Antarctic environment and resources, it has contributed to the convergence of the discussions.
This panel was followed by discussions prompted by questions of the panel chair, Prof. Akiho Shibata, and participants and responses by the panelists. Targeting both presenters, Shibata questioned why the panelists think that Japan as a middle power has this resource-mindedness element in its Antarctic policy in respect to fisheries, whaling, mining and genetic resources. Okubo responds by saying that fisheries is no longer an economic interest for Japan since the magnitude is not considerable at the moment, while in the area of mineral resources, the issue of remoteness and cost would make it unlikely for Japan to consider as an economic interest, while Suman emphasized on Japan’s role in conservation of Antarctic environment.
Eventually, the 2021 SCAR SC-HASS Biennial Conference, though due to the global pandemic restrictions was not convened as initially planned to host increased in-person participants particularly from outside Japan, as a first-time hybrid format of its series, eased higher attendance capability and was able to accommodate more than 320 registered participants, 84 live oral presentations as well as 18 pre-recorded presentations and generated many constructive discussions through three parallel online channels which were duly video-recorded for further on-demand viewing with extended availability until early January 2022.
Despite the challenges, difficulties and limitations caused by the unprecedented COVID-19 global pandemic era, SC-HASS 2021 Conference was successful, and this success could not be realized without, among others, the generous financial supports provided by Mitsubishi Foundation, JSPS KAKENHI and Kobe University Social Systems Innovation Centre that made the intricate hybrid logistical system of the conference possible.
Reported by Zia Madani, JSPS postdoctoral fellow, member of Kobe PCRC
The Polar Journal has recently become an influential peer-reviewed journal strong in Antarctic political science/international relations studies with a wide academic audience interested in polar studies. The two conference reports published in its volume 11 (2021) covering Antarctic panel and seminars at the 13th Polar Law Symposium (PLS) will definitely increase the visibility of the Symposium and PCRC’s Antarctic legal studies.
Zia Madani chairing one of the seminars under his organization.
One of the authors, Dr. Zia Madani, was a member of the Planning Committee of PLS and has led the organization of the Panel on Emerging Legal, Policy and Scientific Issues in the Antarctic. Zia will become a member of PCRC from September 2021 as a prestigious and competitive JSPS postdoctoral fellow.
In his report, Zia covers three online seminars held during the Symposium which addressed a diverse range of issues including Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), bioprospecting, and environmental protection. The first seminar (for flyer see here) on ‘Polar Regions, International Law and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ comprised of two presentations by Claire Christian and Nicolas Bransome, presenting jointly on ‘An Antarctic Perspective on the BBNJ and IPCC processes’ and by Nicolas Kempf on ‘Post-2048 ATS: Some Inspiring International Seabed Authority Tools’. The second seminar (for flyer see here) on ‘Antarctic Governance: Interfaces between Law and Science’ covered three presentations by Yelena Yermakova on ‘The Rule of Law and the Science Pillar in the Antarctic Governance’, Valerie Eboli on ‘Bioprospecting: different legal regimes for Arctic and Antarctic or a single legal regime?’, and by Gustavo Ramirez Buchheister on ‘The Antarctic Extended Continental Shelf: Lessons from the Arctic’. The last seminar (for flyer see here) on ‘Recent Developments of International Environmental Law in the Polar Regions’ comprised of two seminars. The first, by Carolina Flores on ‘Responsibility to Protect the Environment and Polar Regions: Current Trends’ and the second, by Xueping Li titled ‘Are the Matching Rules for Conserving the Outstanding Aesthetic Values in Antarctica Gradually Disappearing with Climate Change?’.
Dr. Madani reported that the panel had a lively discussion, including on the issue of the responsibility of Claimant States to protect environmental human rights, especially on whether it can be legally justified. The complexity of climate change in terms of multiple external entities was also debated in the context of state responsibilities. In addition, there were discussions on which jurisdiction could apply in the context of responsibility to protect the environment when it linked to the claims of sovereignty in Antarctica. The conference left participants to consider what responsibilities states have to protect Antarctica’s environment when they are acting within the area of the Antarctic Treaty, as well as the applicability of responsibility to protect for environmental obligations.
Gustavo chairing the seminar on Antarctic policy-science interface.
The second author, Mr. Gustavo Ramirez Buchheister, is a Chilian lecturer in law and now undertaking his graduate studies in Germany. Gustavo has been active as a contributing member of the SCAR SCHASS Action Group on PoLSciNex, led by Director Shibata and Professor Luis Valentin Ferrada of University of Chile.
In his report, he presented on a seminar (for flyer see here) on Antarctic science-policy interface: A way forward, with three presentations aiming at analyzing experiences within the Antarctic Treaty System in making science-based policy decisions. Each of those presentations focused on the context of the ATS’ environmental policy and the advisory role of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP).
In the report, Gustavo evaluates that the discussion on the seminar revolved on the views and experiences of the speakers on the role that lawyers play and the nexus between Law, Science and Policy. He also described that, although the speakers gave the valuable participation of lawyers within the ATS on the “decision-making end,” it would be desirable for scientists to have the advice from lawyers, so as to have a broader view of the implications of their advice to policy-makers and know what is (legally) feasible.
Zia Madani (2021) Emerging legal, policy and scientific issues in the Antarctic, The Polar Journal,
DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1879423
Gustavo Ramírez Buchheister (2021) Antarctic science-policy interface: a way forward, The Polar Journal,
DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1881240
At the biennial conference of the Standing Committee on Humanities and Social Sciences (SC-HASS) under Scientific Committee of Antarctic Research (SCAR), held in the Antarctic gateway city of Ushuaia, Argentina, 3-5 April 2019, Director Shibata, in collaboration with Julia Jabour of University of Tasmania and Luis Valentin Ferrada of University of Chile, convened two panels: one on the Antarctic Treaty System Resilience and one on Policy-Law-Science Nexus in Antarctica. See the details of program from here.
As to the ATS resilience, the members of the project, including Lilian del Castro of University of Buenos Aires, Gustavo Ramirez Buchheister of University of Magallanes, Chile, Yelena Yarmakova, Ph.D. candidate, University of Oslo, Jason Thompson, MA candidate, KU Leuven, Belgium, and Carolina Flores, recent graduate from Faculty of Law, University of Chile, met on 2 April for discussing a book project proposal.
As to the PoLSciNex project, please see the newly established webpage of SCHASS, including the presentation slide from the open business meeting held on 5 April 2019.
The continent of Antarctica and its governing treaty system will celebrate sixty years of peace, cooperation, and scientific advancement in the year 2021. Its founding document, the Antarctic Treaty, was a peace treaty that effectively shelved the territorial disputes over the claims made to the continent by seven claimant states, maintaining the status quo of the time to the present day. This freezing of territorial claims allowed the continent to be dedicated to peace which is the interest of all humankind and the advancement of science for all states. Over the following half-century, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) expanded to include agreements, measures, and protocols that emphasized consensus-based decision-making on issues including comprehensive environmental protection, banning mineral exploitation & extraction, and regulating commercial tourism.
Despite the successes of the ATS, critics have recently called the strength of the system into question. Scholars in the field of international relations claim that since key instruments of the ATS will come up for renegotiation in the coming decades, the regime could become drastically weakened or collapse completely. Of note is the possible review of the Protocol on Environmental Protection (Madrid Protocol), the agreement that banned mineral exploitation and strengthened the environmental protection regime on the continent. These scholars also state that the current consensus-based decision-making used in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) is becoming ineffective as the number of states involved with the ATS grows. Finally, natural scientists that work on the continent claim that their advice is not adequately considered within the current Antarctic governance regime. These claims place doubt in the strength, legitimacy, and resilience of the current Antarctic Treaty System and challenges the continuation of the continent’s peaceful status quo.
To answer these critiques, The International Workshop on The Resilience of the Antarctic Treaty System to Future Challenges was held at Kobe University in December 2018 to begin a project to assess the strength of the ATS using evidence-based legal research. The university’s Polar Cooperation Research Centre and its director Akiho Shibata organized the workshop along with Julia Jabour of the University of Tasmania (via skype) and Luis Valentin Ferrada of University of Chile. Polar law experts from across the world were in attendance and included, Jill Barrett (Queen Mary), Kees Bastmeijer (Tilburg University), Rachael Lorna Johnstone (University of Akureyri), and Nigel Bankes (University of Calgary). Several early-career scholars interested in the Antarctic international law also attended the workshop.
Akiho Shibata delivered the opening address by presenting the arguments given by critics of the ATS and set the workshop’s hypothesis that the ATS is resilient, legitimate, and can withstand future challenges due to the flexibility built into the system. While it is not a perfect system of governance for the continent, it is better than a weaker regime or no regime at all and is, therefore, important to defend. For this reason, the purpose of this workshop was to begin the work of the greater ATS Resilience project by identifying the present and future challenges that the system must face. These credible challenges will be used to craft scenarios to test the resilience of the system and determine which areas need further strengthening.
Experts in Antarctic law were invited to present their insights on the current state of the ATS and future challenges that they see for the system. Luis Valentín Ferrada began the session by highlighting two specific challenges. First, the vast cultural, economic, legal, political, religious, and social differences between the states party to the ATS, and specifically the territorial claimant states, make finding common ground increasingly difficult as the system grows. When merging these difficulties with the agendas of the other non-state organizations involved with the decision-making processes, the complexity of the current consensus-based system increases exponentially. If this complexity results in the failure to achieve consensus on measures, the legitimacy of the ATS will begin to falter. The second challenge identified was how the language used in ATS measures makes it difficult to adapt them into national law, creating a further barrier to the effectiveness of the treaty regime.
Jill Barrett continued the theme of examining areas that can damage the legitimacy of the current governance regime by asking how the ATS relates to the rest of the world, how easy is it for states to join, and how does it engage with nonmembers. Both members and nonmembers need to be able to easily interact with and contribute to the system for it to continue to grow and evolve. If states believe that taking part in the ATS is ineffective for their interests, they may begin to disregard it in favor of another regime or no regime at all. At its core, the Antarctic Treaty is a peace treaty that should be open to all states and the ATS should expand outreach measures to nonmembers.
Kees Bastmeijer began his remarks by questioning how much could the ATS change while still maintaining the character of the system. While flexibility in the ATS and in the treaty’s consultative parties is important, certain key provisions like Article IV, dedication to science, inclusiveness, inspections, environmental protection, and consensus need to be maintained. If these core pillars of the system are compromised, the ATS would become a substantially different regime with consequences ranging from weakened authority to total collapse. Some examples of challenges to consider in this regard are global disputes that could spread to the Antarctic, increased commercial use of the continent that conflicts with science, and lack of enforcement powers for actions against the treaty system.
The workshop concluded with a discussion about the ideas and challenges presented by the speakers. Arctic law scholars in attendance commented on the similarities and differences between the governance regimes of the two polar regions. Both feature consensus-based decision-making bodies, hierarchies of states and organizations, and overlapping agreements to govern the regions. Also noted were the widespread portrayals of conflict in both regions by the media when, in reality, states tend to follow the rules put in place to maintain the peace. With regards to the proposed project to test the resilience of the ATS, it was suggested to find the thresholds of how much change could occur to the ATS before the goals of the system would be skewed. It was also agreed that the method to use realistic scenarios to “stress test” the system to determine its resilience would be the best way to proceed. The workshop closed after a fruitful discussion and with the goal to craft a book proposal in the first months of 2019. The project team members will reconvene next in Ushuaia, Argentina in April 2019. The final output of the project is planned to be published as a book in 2021 to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty coming into force.
The International Workshop on The Resilience of the Antarctic Treaty System to Future Challenges was held on December 19th, 2018 at Kobe University, Japan and was coordinated by Kobe University’s Polar Cooperation Research Centre with the support of the GSICS Kino-Kyoka Fund and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Kakenhi (18KT0006).
” (2021-26). 
Despite the successes of the ATS, critics have recently called the strength of the system into question. Scholars in the field of international relations claim that since key instruments of the ATS will come up for renegotiation in the coming decades, the regime could become drastically weakened or collapse completely. Of note is the possible review of the Protocol on Environmental Protection (Madrid Protocol), the agreement that banned mineral exploitation and strengthened the environmental protection regime on the continent. These scholars also state that the current consensus-based decision-making used in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) is becoming ineffective as the number of states involved with the ATS grows. Finally, natural scientists that work on the continent claim that their advice is not adequately considered within the current Antarctic governance regime. These claims place doubt in the strength, legitimacy, and resilience of the current Antarctic Treaty System and challenges the continuation of the continent’s peaceful status quo. 
Akiho Shibata delivered the opening address by presenting the arguments given by critics of the ATS and set the workshop’s hypothesis that the ATS is resilient, legitimate, and can withstand future challenges due to the flexibility built into the system. While it is not a perfect system of governance for the continent, it is better than a weaker regime or no regime at all and is, therefore, important to defend. For this reason, the purpose of this workshop was to begin the work of the greater ATS Resilience project by identifying the present and future challenges that the system must face. These credible challenges will be used to craft scenarios to test the resilience of the system and determine which areas need further strengthening. 
Experts in Antarctic law were invited to present their insights on the current state of the ATS and future challenges that they see for the system. Luis Valentín Ferrada began the session by highlighting two specific challenges. First, the vast cultural, economic, legal, political, religious, and social differences between the states party to the ATS, and specifically the territorial claimant states, make finding common ground increasingly difficult as the system grows. When merging these difficulties with the agendas of the other non-state organizations involved with the decision-making processes, the complexity of the current consensus-based system increases exponentially. If this complexity results in the failure to achieve consensus on measures, the legitimacy of the ATS will begin to falter. The second challenge identified was how the language used in ATS measures makes it difficult to adapt them into national law, creating a further barrier to the effectiveness of the treaty regime. 
Jill Barrett continued the theme of examining areas that can damage the legitimacy of the current governance regime by asking how the ATS relates to the rest of the world, how easy is it for states to join, and how does it engage with nonmembers. Both members and nonmembers need to be able to easily interact with and contribute to the system for it to continue to grow and evolve. If states believe that taking part in the ATS is ineffective for their interests, they may begin to disregard it in favor of another regime or no regime at all. At its core, the Antarctic Treaty is a peace treaty that should be open to all states and the ATS should expand outreach measures to nonmembers. 
Kees Bastmeijer began his remarks by questioning how much could the ATS change while still maintaining the character of the system. While flexibility in the ATS and in the treaty’s consultative parties is important, certain key provisions like Article IV, dedication to science, inclusiveness, inspections, environmental protection, and consensus need to be maintained. If these core pillars of the system are compromised, the ATS would become a substantially different regime with consequences ranging from weakened authority to total collapse. Some examples of challenges to consider in this regard are global disputes that could spread to the Antarctic, increased commercial use of the continent that conflicts with science, and lack of enforcement powers for actions against the treaty system. 
The workshop concluded with a discussion about the ideas and challenges presented by the speakers. Arctic law scholars in attendance commented on the similarities and differences between the governance regimes of the two polar regions. Both feature consensus-based decision-making bodies, hierarchies of states and organizations, and overlapping agreements to govern the regions. Also noted were the widespread portrayals of conflict in both regions by the media when, in reality, states tend to follow the rules put in place to maintain the peace. 
With regards to the proposed project to test the resilience of the ATS, it was suggested to find the thresholds of how much change could occur to the ATS before the goals of the system would be skewed. It was also agreed that the method to use realistic scenarios to “stress test” the system to determine its resilience would be the best way to proceed. The workshop closed after a fruitful discussion and with the goal to craft a book proposal in the first months of 2019. The project team members will reconvene next in Ushuaia, Argentina in April 2019. The final output of the project is planned to be published as a book in 2021 to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty coming into force. 
/ 
