Political Philosophy Looks to Antarctica: Sovereignty, Resource Rights and Legitimacy in the Antarctic Treaty System

Global pressure over natural resources in Antarctica will mount in the coming decades. Three pressing factors might motivate states to claim exclusive rights to Antarctica: climate change, dwindling natural resources in occupied territories, and the fact that, by virtue of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, the question of sovereignty in the White Continent remains unresolved. We are thus at a unique point in history to influence the ethical dimensions of the decisions that may govern Antarctica in the future. So far, most analyses of Antarctic politics have taken a descriptive and matter-of-fact approach, while political philosophy has been blind to Antarctica as a case study. In this project, we used these blindspots as a point of departure. Our primary objective was to bring political philosophy to bear on analyses of Antarctic politics more generally, and of the Antarctic Treaty System more specifically. We had two goals: first, to carry out a normative analysis of claims over territory and natural resources in Antarctica, and to develop a systematic normative framework with which to morally assess these claims; and second, to carry out a normative analysis of the political legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System, and to develop a systematic normative framework with which to morally assess it. During the first year we focused on the first goal. We analyzed the connection-based claims of the seven historic claimants and pointed to their limitations in justificatory terms (Mancilla 2018). We also began to look at the traditional discourses of states regarding Antarctica to assess their merits (Mancilla 2019). Capacity seems a well-placed principle for structuring a normative framework for territory and natural resources around it. Equal distribution and need, meanwhile, appear to be relevant considerations when thinking about who should be treated as "interested parties" in Antarctica. We also analyzed how Antarctica performs as a site wherefrom to rethink some issues which have been neglected in normative political theory (Moore 2020 and Nine, forthcoming). Existing normative theories of territorial rights seem necessary, but not sufficient to account for the particulars of Antarctic reality. During the second year of the project, we examined the status of Antarctica as a global commons and, if it is, in what sense (Armstrong, work-in-progress). We also re-evaluated the critique that Antarctica was and is a sight of colonialism, developing a novel way of understanding what this means and what its implications are, for Antarctica and beyond Antarctica (Mancilla 2019 and 2020). Along the three years we focused on the second goal, asking how the Antarctic Treaty performs in terms of moral legitimacy. PhD fellow, Yelena Yermakova, developed a normative framework for the purpose as well as for assessing the ATS in terms of republican justice. All in all, the project achieved its main goals, but also opened new avenues of inquiry that the project members will continue investigating. Among them, the use of colonialism as an analytical tool to understand Antarctic history and politics, and the radical possibilities that the Environmental Protocol may offer in terms of protecting not only Antarctica, but also ecosystems beyond Antarctica (Mancilla, work-in-progress).

The main aims of the project were fulfilled and resulted in a series of publications and a PhD dissertation. The PI and team analyzed the territorial claims and claims over natural resources and their normative basis. It was proposed that at least four principles should be considered when evaluating such claims: connection, capacity, fairness in distribution, and need. These may be used to analyze places beyond Antarctica. The PhD fellow analyzed the moral legitimacy and justice of the Antarctic Treaty System. Starting from the model by Buchanan and Keohane to measure the legitimacy of international bodies, the PhD fellow adapted it and developed an original set of conditions to evaluate the ATS. Furthermore, appealing to republican theories of justice as non-domination, the PhD fellow examined the ATS and presented a series of proposals on how to improve along these lines. These models may be applied to measure the legitimacy and justice of other international bodies beyond the AT.

Global pressure over natural resources in Antarctica will mount in the coming decades. Three pressing factors might motivate states to claim exclusive rights to Antarctica: climate change, dwindling natural resources in occupied territories, and the fact that, by virtue of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, the question of sovereignty in the White Continent remains unresolved. We are thus at a unique point in history to influence the ethical dimensions of the decisions that may govern Antarctica in the future. So far, most analyses of Antarctic politics have taken a descriptive and matter-of-fact approach, while political philosophy has been blind to Antarctica as a case study. In this project, we use these blindspots as a point of departure. Our primary objective is to bring political philosophy to bear on analyses of Antarctic politics more generally, and of the Antarctic Treaty System more specifically, by focusing on two topics. First, we seek to carry out a normative analysis of claims over territory and natural resources in Antarctica, and to develop a systematic normative framework with which to morally assess these claims. Second, we seek to carry out a normative analysis of the political legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System, and to develop a systematic normative framework with which to morally assess it. A secondary objective is to take Antarctica as a site wherefrom to rethink some issues that have been neglected in these areas of normative political theory. Political philosophy looks to Antarctica, then, in two ways: by applying its key concepts and theories to it, and by relying upon it as a source for critically re-evaluating key concepts and theories of territorial rights and rights over natural resources, on the one hand, and political legitimacy, on the other. Having clarity on what is morally at stake in Antarctic politics, we claim, is crucial for peaceful cooperative policy-making and knowledge-based management in the last continent.