Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty

For over 50 years the Antarctic has been governed through the Antarctic Treaty, an international agreement now between 49 nations of whom 28 Consultative Parties (CPs) undertake the management role. Ostensibly, these Parties have qualified for their position on scientific grounds, though diplomacy a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: John R. Dudeney, David W.H. Walton
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Norwegian Polar Institute 2012-04-01
Series:Polar Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/11075/pdf_1
id doaj-7259a54fb2c2487584f318c9e0171856
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7259a54fb2c2487584f318c9e01718562020-11-24T21:39:38Zeng Norwegian Polar InstitutePolar Research0800-03951751-83692012-04-013101910.3402/polar.v31i0.11075Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic TreatyJohn R. DudeneyDavid W.H. WaltonFor over 50 years the Antarctic has been governed through the Antarctic Treaty, an international agreement now between 49 nations of whom 28 Consultative Parties (CPs) undertake the management role. Ostensibly, these Parties have qualified for their position on scientific grounds, though diplomacy also plays a major role. This paper uses counts of policy papers and science publications to assess the political and scientific outputs of all CPs over the last 18 years. We show that a subset of the original 12 Treaty signatories, consisting of the seven claimant nations, the USA and Russia, not only set the political agenda for the continent but also provide most of the science, with those CPs producing the most science generally having the greatest political influence. None of the later signatories to the Treaty appear to play a major role in managing Antarctica compared with this group, with half of all CPs collectively producing only 7% of the policy papers. Although acceptance as a CP requires demonstration of a substantial scientific programme, the Treaty has no formal mechanism to review whether a CP continues to meet this criterion. As a first step to addressing this deficiency, we encourage the CPs collectively to resolve to hold regular international peer reviews of their individual science programmes and to make the results available to the other CPs.http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/11075/pdf_1Governanceclaimant statesAntarctic policyscientific publications
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author John R. Dudeney
David W.H. Walton
spellingShingle John R. Dudeney
David W.H. Walton
Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty
Polar Research
Governance
claimant states
Antarctic policy
scientific publications
author_facet John R. Dudeney
David W.H. Walton
author_sort John R. Dudeney
title Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty
title_short Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty
title_full Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty
title_fullStr Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty
title_full_unstemmed Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty
title_sort leadership in politics and science within the antarctic treaty
publisher Norwegian Polar Institute
series Polar Research
issn 0800-0395
1751-8369
publishDate 2012-04-01
description For over 50 years the Antarctic has been governed through the Antarctic Treaty, an international agreement now between 49 nations of whom 28 Consultative Parties (CPs) undertake the management role. Ostensibly, these Parties have qualified for their position on scientific grounds, though diplomacy also plays a major role. This paper uses counts of policy papers and science publications to assess the political and scientific outputs of all CPs over the last 18 years. We show that a subset of the original 12 Treaty signatories, consisting of the seven claimant nations, the USA and Russia, not only set the political agenda for the continent but also provide most of the science, with those CPs producing the most science generally having the greatest political influence. None of the later signatories to the Treaty appear to play a major role in managing Antarctica compared with this group, with half of all CPs collectively producing only 7% of the policy papers. Although acceptance as a CP requires demonstration of a substantial scientific programme, the Treaty has no formal mechanism to review whether a CP continues to meet this criterion. As a first step to addressing this deficiency, we encourage the CPs collectively to resolve to hold regular international peer reviews of their individual science programmes and to make the results available to the other CPs.
topic Governance
claimant states
Antarctic policy
scientific publications
url http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/11075/pdf_1
work_keys_str_mv AT johnrdudeney leadershipinpoliticsandsciencewithintheantarctictreaty
AT davidwhwalton leadershipinpoliticsandsciencewithintheantarctictreaty
_version_ 1725930186020487168