If the Antarctic Treaty System started as a special family, what kind of family is it today?

Japan did a great job hosting the latest Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Hiroshima – the venue this year for a generally a cordial meeting, drawing together more than 400 participants from across the globe.

However, beneath the calm surface of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) – coordinating activities on the frozen continent since 1959 – strong currents reflect the turbulence of the modern world. A recent issue of the European Journal of International Law carried a thought-provoking piece by Susan Marks called “If the world is a family, what kind of family is it?”, and I had corridor conversations throughout the two-week meeting in Hiroshima reflecting the same question. As Marks puts it, speaking of the world as family has a depoliticising and naturalising effect – “It tends to obscure important divisions and subsumes conflict and contestation under the banner of commonality.”

The Antarctic is indeed special and the ATS is often spoken of as family. It was built upon a rare compromise in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and freezes territorial claims by the members. The spirit of Antarctica among scientists is also strong on the ground.

But the ATS also carries its own baggage, which should not be overlooked.

Colonial legacy is one aspect. The 1959 Treaty stemmed from the heroic age of Antarctic exploration. One of the driving forces of those explorations in the late 19th century and early 20th century was to find new frontiers for resources. The mindset of seeing Antarctica as a new frontier still hangs over discussions regarding the protection of krill, emperor penguins and the mining ban on the continent.

The Cold War construct remains another element undergirding the treaty system. As a deal between the US and the Soviet Union, drawing in other parties, the influence of modern-day US–China competition is yet to play out. Until there is a strategic stability agreed by the US and China, the international system, including the ATS, is likely to remain unstable. Any grand deal between the US and China might not necessarily be good news for others either.

The treaty system also reflects the hierarchy among states. As George Orwell would say, some countries are more equal than others. At the ATCM, this is evident between the Consultative (decision-makers) and Non-consultative Parties. Breaking into the club of 29 Consultative Parties is no easy feat. Ukraine was admitted in 2004, the latest was Czech Republic in 2014. In my view, the question of Antarctica posed at the United Nations General Assembly in 1983 is still valid today, to “seek the views of all” countries, not only those parties to the ATS. As a global commons, the governance structures should be reflective of all.

I still have some hope. The majority of countries accept climate change is an imminent challenge, and those impacts are clearly unfolding in Antarctica. The ATS should be a special family, dedicated for the protection of the Antarctic for current and future generations. But special families do not ignore who is left out of the room, or why.