The Arctic and Antarctica: differing currents of change: Peter Kennedy reports on a recent NZIIA symposium.

• Author: Kennedy, Peter
• Position: CONFERENCE REPORT - Conference notes

'The Arctic and Antarctica: Differing Currents of Change' symposium held on 27 February in Wellington was intended to expose the range of issues related to the northern and southern polar regions, the threats and the challenges, and what the future may hold for these unique environments. After being welcomed by Victoria University of Wellington Vice Chancellor Professor Grant Guilford and MFAT Deputy Secretary Gerard van Bohemen, panel members in the first session tackled the topic of commercialisation versus conservation within differing legal environments. Professor Donald Rothwell, ANU, opened this session, chaired by Peter Kennedy, by looking at how the Law of the Sea Convention interacts--or not--with the distinctive legal regimes of the polar regions. This threw up a number of challenging issues in the Antarctic region, such as whether or not Australia's whale sanctuary is consistent with the Antarctic Treaty. By contrast in the Arctic, without such a specific treaty, there are very direct jurisdictional and maritime issues between sovereign states. Choke points in the Arctic are potentially getting more problematic as the ice melts. A key conclusion was that in the Arctic at least the Law of the Sea Convention will prove pivotal in regulating and managing the area.

By contrast in Antarctica it is the Antarctic Treaty system that has greater impact. Stuart Prior opened up the issue of access to resources and the regions by suggesting a much more open and transparent approach than currently exists. Colin Keating warned that in the absence of sovereign jurisdiction wherever there is conflict, be it military or commercial, conservation values suffer. Negotiations are difficult and time consuming, but in adapting to the future do we push for the 'perfect' solution, which may be unrealisable, or accept an outcome that may not be perfect but actually works?

Territorial claims

In session two, chaired by Bill Mansfield, geographic and political differences between the two polar regions featured. Ambassador Tucker Scully (United States) pointed out that engagements in the Arctic have been based on consultative mechanisms rather than on a treaty designed around earlier territorial claims, as in Antarctica. Moreover, there is a huge significance in the nonmilitary character of the Antarctic, which gives the treaty extra value. Professor Anne-Marie Brady from Canterbury University argued, nevertheless, that the Antarctic Treaty in its present...