The Antarctic Treaty (“Treaty”) is a unique international environmental treaty that has protected the sensitive ecosystem of Antarctica by prioritizing scientific research and restricting Antarctica to “peaceful purposes only.”[1] Other international environmental treaties have been created with similar goals, to protect sensitive ecosystems, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar Convention”)[2] and the Abidjan Convention for the Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region (“Abidjan Convention”).[3] However, the Antarctic Treaty is unlike most international environmental treaties in its distinctive timing, location, and framework. This Treaty essentially protected this ecosystem by freezing a mostly undiscovered and uninhabited piece of land in time. Similarly, to promote scientific research in undiscovered spaces, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (“Outer Space Treaty”)[4] was mirrored almost exactly from the Antarctic Treaty. The structure and framework of the Antarctic Treaty could be incompatible with modern settlements and territorial lines, and as a model, may only operate well in undiscovered areas, like space. On its face, the Antarctic Treaty has been extremely successful in promoting scientific research and protecting Antarctica’s environment.[5] However, scientists and international professors have previously brought attention to the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty, specifically in its position of solving major problems in the wider international community.[6] To be effective long-term, all environmental efforts require collective, domestic, and international action.
The Antarctic Treaty was originally signed in December 1959 by twelve countries involved in the International Geophysical Year—the first, substantial multinational research program in Antarctica.[7] Through this agreement, the parties created one of the few places in the world where there has never been war and the environment is fully protected.[8] The parties committed to protect Antarctica by restricting it to peaceful purposes, with a strong emphasis on scientific research.[9] The Treaty requires Antarctica be used exclusively for peaceful purposes by prohibiting military activities, weapons testing, nuclear explosions, and the disposal of radioactive waste.[10] It also provides that no previously asserted territorial claims may be enhanced or diminished, and no new territorial claims can be made, essentially reserving territorial lines as they were in 1959.[11] The Treaty promotes international scientific research cooperation by guaranteeing the freedom to conduct scientific research, and requires the exchange of research plans and results be made freely available.[12] The Antarctic Treaty has been celebrated as “one of the most successful international regimes for setting aside the dispute over the territorial status of Antarctica” and “for safeguarding the pristine environment of the continent.”[13] Even so, Antarctica still faces new challenges to ensure environmental protection.[14] Antarctica has a delicate and sensitive ecosystem that is highly susceptible to climate change and heavily reliant on stable ice conditions, making it particularly vulnerable to melting sea ice and warming temperatures.[15] Even small disturbances can have large-scale effects.[16] The domestic actions of the Treaty’s parties still have a devastating impact on Antarctica.[17] Antarctica is threatened by Australian coal, Russian gas, and United States oil.[18] The parties’ failure to acknowledge this connection contributes to global sea level rise and high carbon emissions.[19] The goal of environmental protection calls for domestic efforts as they directly impact international climate change. The Antarctic Treaty has likely been successful because the location was uninhabitable and difficult to access, and there were substantially limited territorial claims, making it easier for the parties to negotiate and agree. These considerations have been advantageous in protecting Antarctica’s environment, but they are not sufficient. No single area, no matter how protected, is immune to the global eco-crisis.
The following two treaties have similar goals of protecting sensitive international ecosystems but take different approaches. The Ramsar Convention was originally created in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran by seven countries to protect the sensitive ecosystem of wetlands.[20] According to the Ramsar Convention, countries must submit which portion of their territories is applicable by identifying and reporting “suitable wetlands.”[21] There are currently 172 parties, and all have included some portion of their territories as a suitable wetland.[22] Most notably, the United Kingdom has 175 wetland sites covered, and Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, and the Republic of Congo each have over thirty million acres of wetlands covered.[23] Wetlands are one of the world’s most productive and important environments because they play a crucial role in purifying water, stabilizing shorelines, and cradling biological diversity by providing water to countless species of plants and animals.[24] This convention has been relatively successful because of its collective international efforts in expanding protected wetlands.
Similarly, the Abidjan Convention was created in March 1981 to protect the sensitive marine ecosystems of the west and central African coasts, covering around 14,000 kilometers along the coast from Mauritania to South Africa.[25] Currently, nineteen countries have signed and ratified the Abidjan Convention.[26] These coastal waters contain highly productive ecosystems that support rich fisheries.[27] Rapid development, improper use of the resources, and extensive pollution have harmed these coastal ecosystems through coastal erosion and floods, which has only been exacerbated by climate change.[28] Destruction of these critical habitats is widespread, leaving coastal communities as victims of this destruction.[29] West African coasts are extremely vulnerable and habitat sensitive to delineating hotspots based on surface temperature and lower pH trends, particularly the Togo to Nigeria coastal stretch and the Sierra Leone to Mauritania coastal stretch.[30] The Abidjan Convention delegates to the contracting parties the responsibility of managing certain coastal zones, sustainable mangroves, offshore oil and gas, and pollution combatants.[31] So far, this convention has had mixed success because while it has raised awareness and promoted regional cooperation, limited enforcement capacity and funding constraints have challenged its implementation.[32]
The Outer Space Treaty was modeled almost identically after the Antarctic Treaty.[33] The Outer Space Treaty also designates outer space as a resource for peaceful uses in the interest of all mankind, contributing to productive scientific exploration and international cooperation.[34] Both treaties promote scientific research and cooperation by requiring scientific information and investigation plans be made freely available.[35] Both treaties require the peaceful settlement of issues while prohibiting military activities, sovereign claims, nuclear explosives, and radioactive waste disposal.[36] The Outer Space Treaty has been extremely successful in promoting space research, likely because it mirrors the Antarctic Treaty’s objectives and framework.[37] Both seek to understand extreme environments of interest and importance to humankind, while international communities recognize and work towards environmental and scientific efforts.[38]
The Antarctic Treaty has offered protection to a unique sensitive environment. Other international conservation treaties have not taken the same approach as the Antarctic Treaty and have either struggled to legitimize their efforts, such as the Abidjan Convention, or have experienced success through domestic and international cooperation, like the Ramsar Convention. While the Antarctic Treaty has been used as a model for future treaties to protect sensitive ecosystems and promote scientific research, like the Outer Space Treaty, this unique framework may only work for undiscovered areas, like space. Even with the Antarctic Treaty’s success, Antarctica still faces environmental challenges.[39] Global climate change has no regard for international agreements or boundary lines; it will bleed through and impact every habitat. Environmental conservation requires collective, domestic, and international efforts to protect global health. This includes collectively nurturing international collaboration, maintaining international treaties, and holding domestic parties accountable for their harmful actions. Our Earth is impacted by our connected actions and the consequences of a global climate crisis cannot be understated.
[1] The Antarctic Treaty art. I, Dec. 1, 1959, 402 U.N.T.S. 71.
[2] Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Feb. 2, 1971, 996 U.N.T.S. 245.
[3] Abidjan Convention for the Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region, Mar. 23, 1981, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mul118163ENG.pdf.
[4] Outer Space Treaty of 1967, Jan. 27, 1967, U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205.
[5] Olav Schram Stokke & Davor Vidas, Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
[6] Id.
[7] The Antarctic Treaty Explained, British Antarctic Survey, (May-Jun 1999) https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-explained/.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Yelena Yermakova, Governing Antarctica: Assessing the Legitimacy and Justice of the Antarctic Treaty System, 1 Doctoral Dissertation in Philosophy, University of Oslo, Norway, Apr. 2021.
[14] Id. at 55.
[15] Over the Circle, Interlude: The Arctic’s Mirror Image? Juggling Politics and Climate Change in Antarctica, Artic News and Analysis, Apr. 24, 2018.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Feb. 2, 1971, 996 U.N.T.S. 245.
[21] Id. at art. 2.1.
[22] Id.
[23] List of Parties to the Ramsar Convention, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, (last visited Mar. 7, 2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ramsar_Convention.
[24] Environmental Protection Agency, Why are Wetlands Important? (Mar. 11, 2024) https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/why-are-wetlands-important.
[25] Abidjan Convention for the Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region, Mar. 23, 1981.
[26] The Abidjan Convention, United Nations Environment Programme, https://www.unep.org/abidjan-convention.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Azubuike Victor Chukwuka et al., Habitat Sensitivity in the West African Coastal Area: Inferences and Implications for Regional Adaptations to Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, National Library of Medicine; Environmental Monitoring Assessment, Dec. 23, 2023.
[31] Abidjan Convention for the Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region art. 3, Mar. 23, 1981.
[32] Abidjan Convention, International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network (last visited Feb. 10, 2025) https://iwlearn.net/documents/legal-frameworks/abidjan-convention#:~:text=The%20Bureau%20to%20the%20Convention,program%20for%20the%20Abidjan%20Convention.
[33] Margaret S. Race, Policies for Scientific Exploration and Environmental Protection: Comparison of the Antarctic and Outer Space Treaties, Science Diplomacy, 143-152 (2011).
[34] Id. at 143.
[35] Id. at 145.
[36] Id.
[37] Id. at 150-51.
[38] Id.
[39] Yelena Yermakova, Governing Antarctica: Assessing the Legitimacy and Justice of the Antarctic Treaty System, 1 Doctoral Dissertation in Philosophy, University of Oslo, Norway, Apr. 2021.
