INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGIC PAPERS Australia’s National Interests in the Antarctic Region: What is important? Air Commodore Margot Forster, CSM MARCH 2016 The Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies (CDSS) CDSS is the senior educational institution of the Australian Defence College. It delivers a one‐year Defence and Strategic Studies Course, a professional development program that places emphasis on practical rather than theoretical research, on teamwork and support for the personal and professional goals of students. Students and staff share a commitment to achieving professional excellence. Students graduate with a range of postgraduate qualifications in strategic studies, policy and politics, and business administration. In addition, CDSS is home to the Centre for Defence Leadership and Ethics (CDLE) and the Centre for DInefdeonc-eP Raecsiefaicrc Sht (rCaDtRe)g. CicD RP ampaenargse s the publications on behalf of CDSS staff and students. This range of papers reflects coursework and research submitted by Australian and international students and staff of the Defence and Strategic Studies Course. The papers have been chosen for publication based on their scholarly attributes and strategic relevance. The topics of the papers relate to Australia’s area of primary and enduring strategic interest—the Indo‐Pacific region—and present analyses and assessments that concern Australia’s policy interests. For further information about CDSS publications, please visit <Chotptpy:/r/iwghwtw .defence.gov.au/adc/publications/publications.html> © Commonwealth of Australia 2016 This work is copyright. It may be downloaCdoepdy,r idgihstp lAacyte 1d9, 6p8rinted and reproduced in unaltered form, including the retention of this notice, for personal, non‐commercial use or use for professional purposes. Apart from any use as permitted under the , all other rights are reserved. To replicate all or part of this document for any purpose other than those stipulated above, contact the Editor at <DCiDscSSla.Mimaileborx @defence.gov.au> This work is the sole opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CDSS, the Department of Defence or the Australian Government more broadly. The Commonwealth of Australia will nToht eb ea luegtahlolyr r esponsible in contract, tort or otherwise, for any statement made in this publication. Cerberus Air Commodore Margot Forster joined the RAN in 1982. Her early postings included HMAS , at sea as a Deputy Supply Officer, and Staff Officer to the Director of Naval Officers’ Postings. In October 1988, she transferred to the RAAF and was posted to RAAF Base Williamtown. After accompanying her husband to a posting in the US, she returned in May 1995 to a staff position in Air Force Materiel Division. In 1997, she was posted to Aircraft Research and Development Unit as the Administrative Officer. Air Commodore Forster returned to Canberra in 1999 to join the Air Force Personnel Transition Team, before working as Staff Officer to the Director General Personnel‐Air Force. Later postings included Senior Administrative Officer No 92 Wing, Staff Officer Maritime Patrol Group, Staff Officer Establishments in Air Force Headquarters, and on the Chief of Air Force’s Rebalance and Reshape Team. In January 2007, she was appointed Base Commander RAAF Base Williams and Commanding Officer Combat Support Unit Williams. After a posting to Aerospace Operational Support Group as Staff Officer Personnel, she deployed in November 2010 to the Middle East Area of Operations as Commanding Officer Combat Support Unit, Al Minhad Air Base. In May 2012, she was appointed Director Pathway to Change. In January 2013, she took up the position of Chief of Staff Air Force Personnel Branch. Air Commodore Forster attended the Defence and Strategic Studies Course at the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies in 2015, completing a Master of Arts (Strategic Studies) from Deakin University. In December 2015, she was appointed Commandant AAubsstrtarlaiacnt C ommand and Staff College. For much of the past 100 years, interest in the Antarctic has been limited mainly to environmental groups, explorers and scientists. More recently, however, it has received increased attention as nations seek solutions to the challenges of climate change, energy, water and food security. Accordingly, it seems inevitable that Australia’s national security interests in the Antarctic region are likely to be increasingly challenged over the next 20 years. The paper examines the geopolitical context and significant current and emerging pressures in Antarctica, and assesses the impact of these pressures on Australia’s national security interests.It argues that it is in Australia’s national interests to retain influence in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean region, given its close geographic proximity. It concludes by identifying three key policy initiatives that should be given priority consideration, arguing that their implementation would demonstrate Australia’s commitment to remain an important, relevant and legitimate leader in the management of Antarctic issues. Australia’s National Interests in the Antarctic Region: What is important? Antarctica is not only a region of elemental majesty; it is also a global archive, a window on outer space and a scientific laboratory. It is not only a wondrous world of ice; it is also a political 1 frontier, a social microcosm and a humbling human experiment. Introduction Antarctica, the fifth largest and least explored continent, is the world’s most inhospitable space. 2 In January 1912, Captain Robert Scott declared of Antarctica: ‘Great God! This is an awful place’. This was an understandable description by a man enduring the dangers and discomforts of polar conditions. However, today the Antarctic is more frequently recognised for its pristine beauty, 3 with over 37,000 tourists visiting the continent by air or sea each year. As the world’s coldest continent, completely surrounded by sea and with no indigenous human population, interest in the Antarctic has been limited mainly to environmental groups, explorers 4 and scientists for over 100 years. More recently, Antarctica has received increased attention as 5 nations seek solutions to the challenges of climate change, energy, water and food security. Since the early exploration by Douglas Mawson, Australia has played a significant leadership role 6 in Antarctica. In 1933, following transfer of territory originally claimed for the UK by Mawson, Australia laid claim to 5.8 million square kilometres of the southern polar continent as the 7 Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia, like other claimant states, was able to maintain its territorial claim through the construction of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. This treaty established a framework for shared governance of the continent through the evolving Antarctic 8 Treaty System. The Treaty recognises the Antarctic as being dedicated to peaceful purposes and 9 scientific research, and is cited as arguably the best example of successful regional governance. Geopolitical developments in the 21st century have led to increased interest in the potential 10 opportunities afforded by Antarctica. These developments include nations seeking new sources of protein by harvesting Patagonian toothfish, whales and krill in the Southern Ocean, as well as scientists examining the global weather system and ozone depletion, and drilling ice cores to seek clues to global climate change. Energy dependent nations are increasingly interested in the potential mineral resources within the continent, including coal, manganese ores, iron, uranium 11 and copper, and an estimate of over 200 billion barrels of oil to enhance energy security. Increasingly, the discovery of Antarctica’s potential to provide food, economic and energy security has created new interests that influence development of national Antarctic policies around the world. As a result, there is increasing strain on the fragile and imperfect ‘gentlemen’s 12 agreement’ that evolved into the current Antarctic Treaty System. It is in Australia’s national interests to retain influence in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean 13 region, given its close geographic proximity. Australia’s Antarctic strategy declares the strategic importance of the Antarctic Treaty System to Australia’s national interests. It supports the multinational scientific treaty but also simultaneously pursues traditional sovereignty claims. However, Australia’s ability to shape future Antarctic Treaty System development is constrained 14 by funding levels that have been frozen for a decade. As such, it is timely to revisit Australia’s national interests in the Antarctic region, and the policy commitments that arise2 0 fYroeamr Atuhsetsrea liainnt eArnetsatsr.c tiTc hSet raAtuegsticr aPlilaann Government is currently considering its response to recommendations made by an independent inquiry led by Dr Tony 15 Press Athuastt rfaolciau’sse fdu tounre a a ctivities and responsibilities in the Southern .Oc eCaonn caunrdr eAnnttlayr, ctthice wSeanteartse, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade released a report in October 2014, titled 1 which also made a number of recommendations (including some that linked to the strategic 16 plan). Australian Antarctic STthrea tergeicco Pmlamnendations from both bodies of work will likely influence the Australian Government’s 2016 Defence White Paper. The Government’s response to the and the Senate Standing Committee report was expected in late 2015. While it is not possible to anticipate the Government’s response, it will provide a focus for future opportunities, as well as for key priorities and their implementation. Recognising the changing geopolitical circumstances, this paper will argue that Australia’s national security interests in the Antarctic region are likely to be challenged over the next 20 years. This argument is centred on two key assumptions. First, the continuity of Australia’s ‘sovereignty’ claim to the Australian Antarctic Territory is key to its national interests. This interest is buttressed by the longest continuous presence on the continent and being one of the 17 original Antarctic Treaty parties. Second, the paper assumes that current and future Australian governments will remain committed to the primacy of the Antarctic Treaty System to Australia’s sovereignty and national interests over the next 20 years. The paper will briefly examine the geopolitical context and significant current and emerging pressures in Antarctica, and considAeurs trthalei ainm Apnactat roctfi ct hSetsrea tepgriecs sPulraens on Australia’s national security interests in Antarctica over the next 20 years. The paper will then identify three key policy initiatives aligned with the and the findings of the Senate Standing Committee and argue that they should be given consideration for priority implementation. Acting on these recommendations would demonstrate Australia’s commitment tSoe rcetmioainn 1an: Eimvpoolrutatniot, nre olefv tahnte a Andn lteagritcimtiact eg loevadeerrn ina nthcee m eannavgiermonenmt oefn Atn atanrcdti c issues. pressures on its continued relevance This section will provide a brief history of how the Antarctic Treaty came into being. It will analyse the geostrategic circumstances at the time the Treaty was established and discuss how the Treaty and its key subordinate and complementary instruments evolved over time to remain relevant. The section will go on to discuss the emerging pressures on the Treaty as a result of the changing geopolitical circumstances and increasing interest in Antarctica’s resource potential. Finally, within this section there will be a brief examination of the ever‐increasing array of stakeholders with interests in the Antarctic. In particular, this section will seek to explain how the potential future policies and actions of these stakeholders might undermine the current cooperative approach achieved through the Antarctic Treaty System. The purpose of this examination will be to provide context for subsequent analysis of the potential impact on Australia’s national interests and provide arguments supporting this paper’s policy rDeecvoemlompemndeantti oonf st.h e Antarctic Treaty System In 1957, the world was in the midst of the Cold War, and Antarctica, remote as it is, was not exempt from discord. Several of the original claimant states were in the middle of territorial disputes, while other members of the international community believed Antarctica should be 18 considered ‘common property’. Significantly, the UK, Argentina and Chile had (and still have) overlapping sovereignty claims. United by a common desire to demilitarise the Antarctic and ensure that it was not used as a nuclear testing site and/or dumping ground, the Antarctic Treaty was negotiated between the seven territorial claimant states of Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and 19 the UK, along with non‐claimants Belgium, Japan, South Africa, the USSR and the US. Ratified on 23 June 1961, the Treaty suspended existing territorial claims, prohibited new claims and any activity asserting, supporting or denying a territorial claim for the life of the Treaty. 2 20 Despite this development, no state formally disputes Australia’s territorial claim. During early negotiations to find a suitable solution to what became known as the ‘Antarctic problem’, Australia initially rejected the idea of forgoing sovereignty and potentially losing control over 21 Antarctic resources. However, Australia remained committed to a solution and, following the celebrated success of the International Geophysical Year of 1957‐58, perspectives changed and agreement was reached. Consequently, the Antarctic Treaty was drafted explicitly stating that ‘Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, and shall not 22 become the scene or object of international discord’. Marcus Haward observes that Australia played a major role in negotiating ‘capstone features of the Antarctic Treaty’ that ban military bases, weapons testing, establishes freedom of scientific investigation and information exchange, and mandates open inspections and a governance 23 structure for managing disputes. This benign interpretation that sees Antarctica saved from the politics of the day by using a vision of peace and science to gain consensus on how to govern the continent is in contrast to the argument offered by Klaus Dodds. Dodds asserts that the US‐led ‘science and peace’ diplomacy that constructed the Antarctic Treaty was actually orchestrated to ‘secure US dominance and Soviet interests’ without the need for complicated territorial 24 disputes. Regardless of motivation, the Treaty’s primary objective was to ensure Antarctica was used for peaceful purposes and the pursuit of cooperative science. The original Treaty consisted of 14 Articles that constructed a framework to achieve objectives through consultation, cooperation 25 and transparency. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, first established as the Special Committee on Antarctic Research in 1957, provides scientific advice to Antarctic Treaty 26 System members and governments. Since 1961, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have worked to strengthen the original Treaty and its institutional architecture. Membership has diversified, with 40 more countries acceding to the Treaty, increasing the membership to 52 nations. To achieve ‘Consultative Party’ status and voting rights on Antarctic administration, a nation must demonstrate their interest in 27 Antarctica by ‘conducting substantial research activity there’. Seventeen of the acceding countries have had their activities in Antarctica recognised according to this provision, and consequently there are now 29 nations with voting rights. A crucial factor to Australian influence is that any changes or additions to the Treaty must require ratification by all 12 original signatories. The other 24 ‘non‐consultative parties’ are 28 invited to attend consultative meetings but do not participate in the decision‐making. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are now significantly more representative of the wider international community and its membership covers approximately 80 per cent of the global 29 population. Arguably the continued legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System can be attributed to its ability to adapt to changing global circumstances. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have the ability to discuss any matters that arise in the Antarctic context and ‘adopt binding obligations 30 with respect to it’ through the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting process. This has been achieved through adaptations to its governance structure negotiated under Article IX of the 31 Antarctic Treaty. Using this ‘rather open‐ended power’, the original Antarctic Treaty has expanded into a system that includes three other international treaties, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (1972); the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (1980); and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol) (1991) 32 and their subsidiary arrangements. The Antarctic Treaty System also includes organisations such as the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes, the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources secretariat, and institutions such as the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Together, their purpose is to conserve, preserve and 33 protect the Antarctic marine and terrestrial environments. 3 Lastly, legal and political developments outside Antarctica have not stopped since the Antarctic Treaty came into force. Member states have had to embrace change, including the accommodation of non‐state actors such as environmental groups, and tourism and fisheries organisations, within the Antarctic Treaty System. These adaptations demonstrate evolution to maintain relevance and embrace legal and political developments outside the Antarctic, including biological diversity, climate change, resource regulation, law of the sea, and commercial 34 aMcatidvritiide sP.ro tocol Of the three complementary instruments to the Antarctic Treaty System, the Protocol on Environment Protection to the Antarctic Treaty or the ‘Madrid Protocol’ is the most relevant to the discussion in this paper. The following provides a brief overview of its history. The mineral and oil resource potential afforded by Antarctica has always been on the minds of nations with Antarctic interests. However, the potential for dispute over access and ownership of these resources encouraged original Treaty negotiators to wisely choose to leave the topic for later consideration. Antarctic resources have been discussed several times over the ensuing years and, at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting of 1977, a voluntary moratorium on exploration was adopted, with the parties agreeing to refrain from exploration and exploitation 35 while seeking a solution. After six years of challenging negotiations, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activates was adopted. This Convention permitted mining while directing that the Antarctic environment be preserved. At the time, neither the Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, nor Treasurer, Paul Keating, were satisfied with the Convention. They expressed concern over the impact of mining on the environment and the impact on Australian sovereignty and 36 revenue share. On 22 May 1989, the Prime Minister announced that Australia would not sign. France supported Australia’s position and the two countries collaborated to advocate for an alternative approach that prohibited mining. Nearly ten years later, the Madrid Protocol (adopted in 1991) entered into force on 14 January 37 1998. The most significant aspect of the Protocol’s 27 Articles and six Annexes is Article 7, which states that ‘any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited’. Also of note is that until 2048, the Protocol can only be modified by unanimous agreement of all Consultative Parties. Thereafter, modifications can be made by the agreement of the majority of the Parties, including three‐quarters of the States, which were Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties at the time of adoption of this Protocol. It also allows for Parties to withdraw from the Protocol in certain 38 circumstances. Of significance, adoption of this protocol demonstrated the ability of Australia as a middle world power to shape Antarctic policy by working bilaterally with France and gaining sUuNp pCoorntv oefn tthioen in ocnr eLaaswin golfy t ihnef lSueean tial transnational environmental organisations. The UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) established the legal framework for the use of the world’s oceans. It was developed over the period 1956 to 1982 in response to numerous disputes over ocean resources. The convention addresses the rights and duties of sovereign nations with respect to territorial seas, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones (EEZ), continental shelves and extended continental shelves, and the exploration and exploitation of 39 natural resources in, on and above the seabed. The challenge is created where the Antarctic Treaty’s Article IV ‘intersects’ with Article 76 of UNCLOS. Noting that the Treaty suspends all territorial claims, Article IV states that: No acts or activities taking place … shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting … a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be 40 asserted while the Treaty is in force. 4 Article 76 recognises the entitlement of coastal states to an EEZ of 200 nautical miles. It also allows an extended continental shelf beyond the limits of the EEZ, to a maximum distance of 350 41 nautical miles, where a continental shelf exists. The problem arises because the basis of any such claim is ownership of sovereign territory, and the Convention required nations to submit data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf within 10 years of UNCLOS entering into force for that nation. Australia was required to submit its claim by 16 November 2004. Cognisant that any claim under UNCLOS for an extended continental shelf could be perceived by some Antarctic Treaty ConsNulotatet ivVee rPbaarltei es as acting in violation of Article IV, Australia worked with other claimants in an attempt to find a solution. Eventually, Australia did submit its claim on time but caveated it with a acknowledging the ‘special legal and political status of Antarctica’ and requesting the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf ‘not take any action for the time being with regard to the information in this Submission that relates to the 42 continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica’. Eight states made representations to the UN about Australia’s submission. Six rejected outright Australia’s right to claim territorial sovereignty in Antarctica over the seabed or adjacent offshore surrounding Antarctica. Australia’s submission generated a response that demonstrates 43 the tenuous nature Australia’s claim to sovereignty . This situation is significant for Australia given the emerging challenge for resource potential and the developing extraction technologies 44 Ethmate mrgaikneg tgheeospe orelistoicuarlc iensf ilnucernecaesisn gly accessible. The notion of security and global order has changed significantly since the Antarctic Treaty was 45 originally negotiated at the height of the Cold War. Today, the Treaty has to address new challenges. The ‘rise of Asia’, the impact of globalisation, the tensions associated with climate change, anthropogenic impact, and resource scarcity pose a level of complexity not considered 46 previously. With the growing appreciation of Antarctica’s potential to provide food, economic and energy security, the question is whether the Antarctic Treaty System will be able to adapt 47 aCnlidm raetsep cohnadn tgoe t he challenges going forward. The Antarctic region has an important link to climate change for two reasons. First, Antarctica is critical to climate research. The Antarctic ice sheet contains within its layers a rich archive of information on past climatic and environmental changes. The information suspended in the ice is 48 of immense importance to the accurate reconstruction of past climates. Second, Antarctica—as 49 suggested by Alan Hemmings and colleagues—is ‘in a sense, the world’s largest canary’. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change and influence on regional and global weather and climate is being increasingly recognised. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified that Antarctica was one of two regions with the ‘greatest potential to affect global climate and thus human populations and 50 biodiversity’. The emerging pressures of resource security and tourism makes Antarctica a place with competing tensions between those who want to protect and preserve it for its value to 51 sHcuiemnacen aancdti hviutmy anity, and those who want to exploit it. Environmental degradation is of significant concern due to increased human presence on the continent from scientific research and tourism. Tourism increases public awareness of Antarctica and engenders support for conservation but there are negative effects. Antarctica is well established within the global tourism market. However, the capacity of the Antarctic Treaty System to regulate tour operators is limited and there are no regulations in the Treaty to manage 52 tourism effectively. 5 There are fears of an increasing risk of environmental damage caused by the ever‐increasing number of tourists. These include the risk of introduction of non‐indigenous animals, plants and micro‐organisms; disruption to animal breeding cycles; concerns over environmental damage from vessels operating in the Ross Sea and Peninsula regions; and pressure to establish 53 permanent land‐based tourist facilities. Not surprisingly, the original Treaty did not anticipate tourism as a core industry in the Antarctic continent. However, it does recognise the right of Contracting Parties to designate observers to 54 ‘have complete freedom of access at any time to any or all areas of Antarctica’. This provides some mitigation for operators, tour guides and tourists who are nationals of a Treaty state. Fortunately, the tourism industry has established a self‐regulating body, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, ‘dedicated to facilitating appropriate, safe and 55 environmentally sound private‐sector travel to the Antarctic’. The Association has established by‐laws to guide best practice operations aligned with Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting standards. However, membership is not compulsory and there is no mechanism to regulate 56 compliance. Statistics collected by the Association indicate that over 37,000 tourists visited Antarctica in 2014‐15. This potentially does not reflect the actual number of visitors, noting that these figures do not capture non‐Association tourists. Significantly, a study of the 2005‐06 season indicated that ‘non‐International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators member large vessels accounted for 64 per cent of all large vessel voyages to the Antarctic’ and that ‘an estimated 47 per cent of 57 all large vessel tourists travelled with non‐Association member operators’. Antarctic tourism operates in a potentially‐hazardous environment. Increased activity without effective regulation increases Athkea dcehmanikc eS hoof kinalcsikdieynts and accidents in this remote location and puts tourists at risk. Search‐and‐rescue operations in the Antarctic region are challenging. The rescue of tourists off the MV in January 2014 provides an example of the 58 potential problem. Very few vessels have the capacity to operate in the Southern Ocean Antarctic environment and, in this particular rescue situation, Australian, French and Chinese 59 research vessels were redirected from thAekiar dsecmienikt iSfihco wkaolrskk ityo support the rescue. An increase in events such as the MV incident will further challenge the maritime security services of the five countries with search‐and‐rescue areas that extend to 60 Antarctica. There is potential for Antarctic relations to be challenged if science and research 61 aCsosmetps ectoinntgin fuoer teoi gbne rpeodliirceyc toedb jteoc ttoivuersis:t srceisecnueti fmici ssrieosnesa.rc h versus exploitation of natural resources 62 Antarctica’s substantial mineral resources tempt countries to exploit them. The drivers of energy security and competition for finite resources are creating growing geopolitical tensions as 63 states are forced to look further afield for reliable and available sources. The resource potential of Antarctica is a risk to the Antarctic Treaty System because it raises the unresolved issue of claimant and non‐claimant states. Major powers such as China and Russia have voiced their interest in the continent’s resource potential, strongly suggesting the current prohibition on 64 resource exploitation will be revisited after 2048. In 2001, Russia illegally collected data on oil and gas reserves and, in 2010, announced a strategy that dealt extensively with the potential for Antarctic resources to be exploited; it has also 65 released an investment strategy that allocates US$20 billion to Antarctic activities out to 2020. Since 2005, the Chinese Government has dramatically increased expenditure on Antarctic affairs in the quest to secure greater leadership in Antarctic administration as a result of its increasing 66 dissatisfaction with the current order. Speaking at its governing meeting in July 2013, China's 67 leader Xi Jinping stressed the need to ‘take advantage of ocean and polar resources’. Commensurate with its rise as an economic and military power, China is integrating itself into the international world order and playing an increasing leadership role in Antarctica. Australia was instrumental in including China in Antarctic research by integrating Chinese scientists in the 6 Australian research team. China has since established its own research stations. However, cooperation between Antarctic research partners, away from the glare of issues over the South China Sea and North Korea, remains strong. Chinese scientific cooperation under the Antarctic Treaty System provides useful track‐two diplomacy opportunities with many nations, and has 68 included China hosting Taiwanese scientists at its Antarctic research stations. While China’s interests clearly include access to natural resources, the opportunity to include this rising world power in future negotiations could significantly strengthen any new collaborative approach. Of the original Antarctic Treaty System partners, the US remains the largest financial investor in 69 Antarctica, with the largest presence also. Thirty other nations, including Australia, New Zealand, Norway and the UK, also maintain a year‐round scientific presence. While the Treaty stipulates data sharing, annual reporting and bans mineral exploration, there are increasing 70 concerns that nations are using ‘scientific research’ to cover national interest activities. Argentina, Chile and South Korea have also registered their interest in Antarctic resources, indicating their presence on Antarctica will support future sovereignty claims if the Treaty is 71 revoked or expires. India, Malaysia and China have all expressed dissatisfaction with the original Treaty’s ‘colonials’ club’ and actively campaigned for new administrative 72 arrangements. However, now that Malaysia has been the first ASEAN state to accede to the Treaty, it can play a constructive role as a conduit between the Antarctic Treaty System and non‐ member countries, and possibly encourage more Asian states to become members of the 73 Treaty. Many of these nations are commissioning new stations and expanding their national research efforts, while established treaty members are upgrading their existing stations. Germany has replaced an existing station and the UK has replaced its Halley Station. Russia is expanding its 74 icebreaker fleet, while China is proceeding with upgrades of its existing sites. In 2012, China also commissioned the first of three telescopes under construction at Dome A, the highest site on 75 the Antarctic Plateau. The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition and Greenpeace International represent the new transnational environmental organisations committed to protecting the Antarctic environment, 76 and providing independent advice. The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, with 150 members in 40 countries, has successfully lobbied governments to introduce and police new fishing regulations, protect krill stocks, and support the establishment of large marine protected areas. More activist groups, such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, have actively pursued the Japanese whaling fleet during its annual hunt. Determining common interests and tensions will bSue mimmpaorrtya nt in implementing any new Antarctic strategy. The Antarctic Treaty stabilised the deeply‐divisive problem of territorial sovereignty. It suspended sovereignty positions and allowed for the emergence of scientific pursuit as the determining factor in affording access to the region. Cognisant of the evolving world context, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have worked to create a relevant international institutional and regime‐based structure with the aim of strengthening the original Treaty. Over the 50 years of its existence, the Antarctic Treaty was buttressed and extended by additional legal instruments addressing conservation, resource management and environmental protection. It has broadened its reach and maintained relevance by expanding its membership. However, there are also potential disadvantages to some of these developments. Size of membership could dilute the original spirit and aims of the Treaty. This could give rise to tensions between claimant and non‐claimant states, and between states and non‐government organisations. Notwithstanding, the Antarctic Treaty has endured because there are still tangible benefits for the original parties. It has become flexible to accommodate new members and deal 77 with emerging geopolitical issues as they have arisen, enabling competing positions to coexist. The additional instruments have also widened and deepened the institutional architecture of the Antarctic Treaty System. The Treaty’s ongoing success has enabled a positive story to be told about the unsolvable problem of competing sovereign claims. 7