THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY

Italian Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 13, Issue , 2005, Pages 147-155

  Vigni, Patrizia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85075845973     PISSN: 03915107     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/221161303X00083     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. 1 Adopted in Madrid on 4 October 1991, ILM, 1991, p. 1455 ff.
2. 2 For an overview of the new trends of the ATS toward a form of partial institutionalisation, see FRANCIONI, “A Decade of Development in Antarctic International Law”, in FRANCIONI and SCOVAZZI (eds.), International Law for Antarctica, 2nd ed., The Hague, 1996, p. 1 ff.
3. GAUTIER, “Institutional Developments in the Antarctic Treaty System”, International Law for Antarctica, pp. 31-47.
4. 3 For an overall analysis of the negotiations relating to the establishment of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, see SCOTT, “Institutional Developments within the Antarctic Treaty System”, ICLQ, 2003, pp. 473-487.
5. 4 A further elaboration of the possibility of establishing a secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty results in a doctrinal work of Professor Francioni. See FRANCIONI, “Establishment of an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat: Pending Legal Issues”, in VIDAS (ed.), Implementing the Environmental Protection Regime for the Antarctic, Dordrecht, 2000, p. 125 ff., pp. 132-140.
6. 5 In St Petersburg, the XXIV ATCM adopted Decision 1(2001) which confirmed that the Secretariat would have its seat in Buenos Aires and stressed the urgent need to pursue the development of modalities and agreements for its establishment, in US Department of State, The Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System (hereafter Antarctic Handbook), 9th ed., Washington DC, 2002, p. 133.
7. 6 One of the most important occasions, where the issue of the establishment of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat was discussed, was the international conference, held at Wilton Park (UK) in November 2001 and entitled “40 Years On: The Antarctic Treaty System in the 21st Century”. This conference was organised by the Fridtjof Nansen Institute of Oslo and the Polar Regions Section of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the fortieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Antarctic Treaty. Some important papers were presented to disseminate information about the ATS. See FRANCIONI, “The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat: What Will Be Its Role and Responsibilities?”. The papers of the Wilton Park’s conference have not been published. The present author is grateful to Professor Francioni for having provided her a copy of his contribution.
8. 7 See FRANCIONI, Implementing the Environmental Protection Regime for the Antarctic, pp. 132-135.
9. 12 XXV ATCM/WP 044.
10. 13 Art. 2 of the Draft Headquarters Agreement, annexed to the Report of the Chairman of the Working Group on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, done in Warsaw on 19 September 2002.
11. 14 See para. 40 of the Final Report of the XXV ATCM.
12. 15 Some proposals for the regulation of the budget of the Secretariat were set down in a paper, presented by Argentina and Australia. See XXV ATCM/WP 046.
13. 17 Strong objections relating to the issue of the status of the Secretariat’s staff were raised, in particular, by Norway.
14. 18 This group took the name of Committee of the Whole and was chaired by Mr. Jan Huber of the Dutch Delegation.
15. 19 One must highlight that this solution had been already suggested by Professor Francioni at the Wilton Park’s conference. See FRANCIONI, “The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat: What Will Be Its Role and Responsibilities?”.
16. 20 XXVI ATCM/WP 05.
17. 21 This group was chaired by Mr. Jan Huber of the Dutch Delegation.
18. 22 The group that dealt with the issue of the interim functioning of the Secretariat was chaired by Mr. Michel Trinquier of the French Delegation. For an analysis of the work of this group, see the Report of the Chairman of Working Group 1 on the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, XXVI ATCM/IP 125.
19. 23 India presented a paper in order to stress the view that the actual capacity of the Parties to pay had to be assessed by each Party. See XXVI ATCM/IP 110.
20. 24 In regard to the issue of intersessional consultations, see para. 24 of the Final Report of the XXVI ATCM.
21. 25 At the XXVII ATCM, held in Cape Town in May 2004, Japan, Argentina, and Australia made some proposals relating to intersessional consultations. However, no agreement was reached by the Consultative Parties.
22. 26 These documents were annexed to the Final Report of the XXVI ATCM: Measure 1(2003) is in Annex A; Decisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are in Annex B.
23. 27 Since 2001 a contact group has reorganised the measures that were adopted by the ATCM before the approval of Decision 1(1995). This contact group, chaired by the Dutch Delegation, was established by Resolution 1(2001) during the XXIV ATCM, held in St Petersburg. See Antarctic The Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, p. 130.
24. 28 So far, the Antarctic Handbook has not been a legal source, but it has only had an instrumental character. So, the legal acts that are included in the Handbook cannot be considered authoritative copies of the measures adopted by the ATCM. The authoritativeness of such measures derives from their inclusion in the final reports of the ATCMs. When the Secretariat, which is an organ of the ATCM, takes care of collecting Antarctic instruments, the copies of the Antarctic acts that it will disseminate will indisputably have an authoritative status.
25. 29 Actually, other international treaties, such as the Convention on Climate Change, have a secretariat to which no international organisation corresponds (the Climate Change Convention was signed in Rio on 9 May 1992, ILM, 1992, p. 849 ff.). The Climate Change Secretariat cooperates with the Conference of the Parties, which is not a permanent international institution. Nevertheless, one must observe that the Climate Change Convention and its Secretariat are strictly connected with the UN. In fact, this Secretariat was established by a common deliberation of the Conference of the Parties and the UN General Assembly. Therefore, the regime, which originated from the Climate Change Convention, has an international organisation to which it can, at least, make reference. By contrast, the ATS cannot rely on any international entity. For an analysis of the different types of secretariats, see FRANCIONI, “The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat: What Will Be Its Role and Responsibilities?”.
26. 31 A controversial issue that was not resolved in Madrid concerns the possibility of the Secretariat and its Staff of enjoying privileges and immunities in the country which hosts the ATCM. In fact, States Parties host the annual meetings, following the English alphabetic order. The ATCM did not extend such immunities of the Secretariat to countries other than Argentina. It let each party choose whether or not to recognise these privileges vis-à-vis the Secretariat. This problem was raised by Professor Francioni in his paper, presented at the Wilton Park’s conference and still seems to call for a solution.
27. 32 For the view that the institutionalisation of the ATS is scarce and ineffective, see SCOTT, ICLQ, p. 477.