Content area
Full Text
Introduction
On 1 December 1959, representatives of twelve states, including the Soviet Union and the United States, gathered in Washington DC to sign the Antarctic Treaty (AT), a legally binding instrument creating a governance system for Antarctica based on the principle of international cooperation and authorising scientific research as the principal human activity in the region. Launched as a prominent departure from the normal pattern of conflict characteristic of the cold war, the arrangement formalised in the Antarctic Treaty took root, giving rise to a process of progressive development leading over time to agreed measures on the conservation of flora and fauna 1964, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)1980, the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty 1991, and the general recognition of Antarctica as an international space. Taken together, the resultant complex of agreements forms the core of what we now know as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), widely regarded as one of the most effective international governance systems of the modern era.
Contrast this narrative of international cooperation starting in the 1950s with the parallel story of the international relations of the Arctic. The cold war divided the Arctic into two armed camps and turned the central Arctic basin into a theatre of operations for strategic weapons systems. During the 1950s, as ideas for a cooperative regime for Antarctica were taking shape, the United States and Canada were busily constructing the Distant Early Warning Line (DEW Line) along the 69th parallel in North America and Greenland. USN Nautilus surfaced at the North Pole in 1958, initiating a practice of regular deployments of nuclear-powered and heavily armed submarines in the Arctic Basin. The Soviet Union followed suit, stationing major military assets in the Russian north. Measures featuring international cooperation in the Arctic emerged quite rapidly following the end of the cold war. Yet the Arctic Council (AC), established in 1996 as the principal means to nurture international cooperation in the region, is rooted in a non-binding ministerial declaration. The council lacks the authority to make, much less the resources to implement, major policy choices regarding Arctic matters. Today, the renewal of tension between Russia and the west is raising concerns about the future of international cooperation in the circumpolar north.