Balancing Sovereign Interests beyond National Jurisdictions

ifty years ago on 2 May 1958 the government of the United States of America circulated a note to the 12 states most actively involved in scientific research in Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year, initiating discussions regarding the convening of a conference on Antarctica and the conclusion of an international treaty for this area. Shortly after the circulation of the note, on 10 June 1958, these 12 states, namely, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), started informal preliminary discussions in Washington that resulted in the convening of an international conference in Washington on 15 October 1959. On 1 December 1959 the conference resulted in the signing of the Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force on 23 June 1961 and currently defines an international regime for this vast area of our planet. The Antarctic Treaty turned out to be one of the most successful international agreements concluded by states belonging to two opposite ideological and military blocks, despite the extreme tension existing between them during the cold war period. It is also remarkable that the 12 states concerned managed to overcome a disagreement that existed and continues to exist among them regarding the legal status of the Antarctic continent in general and certain parts thereof that are considered by seven of them, namely, Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom, to be part of their territory. A lot was said at the Antarctic Treaty Summit: SciencePolicy Interactions in International Governance about the important role played by the Antarctic Treaty in ensuring close international cooperation in Antarctica, in providing solid ground for development of scientific research in Antarctica in the interest of all mankind, and in preserving Antarctica as an area of peace and stability, free of military rivalry and confrontation. Therefore, I will concentrate only on one aspect of the Antarctic Treaty that, in my view, is crucial for understanding what constitutes a foundation of the treaty and for retaining Antarctica as an area of peace and stability in the interests of future generations. I refer to the provisions of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. In a balanced way, Article IV reflects the positions of the three groups of states that negotiated the Antarctic Treaty: states that consider the respective Balancing Sovereign Interests beyond National Jurisdictions