Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T20:29:39.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The practicalities of domestic legislation to prohibit mining activity in Antarctica: a comment on the Australian perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Sam Blay  and
Julia Green
Sam Blay
Affiliation:
Law School, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Julia Green
Affiliation:
Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After its rejection of the Minerals Convention adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) in 1988, Australia took a major step in its domestic law by enacting the Antarctic Mining Prohibition Act of 1991 (AMPA), to reinforce its general objection to mineral resource activities in Antarctica and its commitment to the protection ofthe Antarctic environment. With the adoption of the Protocol on Environmental Protectionto the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol) – which required the parties to take steps to implement its provisions, including the enactment of domestic legislation – Australia enacted the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) Act (ATEPA). The ATEPA is meant to replace the AMPA once the Madrid Protocol comes into force. The Protocol bans mineral resource activities in Antarctica and adopts a comprehensive regime toregulate all human activity in Antarctica in an effort to protect the region's environment. As legislation to implement the Protocol, the principal objectives of the ATEPAare to prohibit mineral resource activities in the Australian Antarctic Territory and toregulate all human activity that may have a direct impact on the environment in the area. It also prohibits Australian nationals from engaging in mineral resource activities elsewhere in Antarctica. Like Australia, a number of ATCPs have either adopted legislationor are developing legislation in their domestic legal systems to implement the Protocol.It is one thing for the Protocol to demand the adoption of domestic legislation to ensure compliance with its provisions, including the ban on mining; it is quite another thingto develop effective domestic legislation on the issue. Given the absence of any knowncommercially exploitable deposits of minerals in Antarctica, the likelihood of any mineralresource activity in the region is very remote. But should mining activity occur in Antarctica in breach of the Protocol, the enforcement of the ban could be fraught with practical, legal, and policy difficulties. This paper examines the domestic legislative efforts by Australia as a leading ATCP to ban mining activity in Antarctica. Even though the discussion focuses on Australia by examining its legislation, the problems and the issues raised in the Australian context are also relevant to other ATCPs generally and to claimants in particular.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 30 , Issue 172 , January 1994 , pp. 23 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akehurst, M. 1972–1973. Jurisdiction in international law. British Year Book of International Law 46: 145–257.Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1914. Crimes Act 1914. Act No. 12 of 1914. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery.Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1960. Antarctic Treaty Act 1960. Act No. 48 of 1960. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery.Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1980. Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. Act No. 108 of 1980 as amended by Act No. 156 of 1992. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery.Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1987. Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. Act No. 87 of 1987. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery:Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1990–1991. Explanatory Memorandum Antarctic Mining Prohibition Bill 1991. Canberra: 20949/Cat. No. 91 3211 8. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery.Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1991a. Antarctic Mining Prohibition Act 1991. Act No. 43 of 1991. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery.Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1991b. House of Representatives Parliamentary Debates 13 March 1991. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery.Google Scholar
Australia, Commonwealth of. 1992. Antarctic (Environment Protection) Legislation Amendment Act 1992. Act No. 156 of 1992. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printery.Google Scholar
Behrendt, J.C. 1991. Scientific studies relevant to the question of Antarctica's petroleum resources potential. In: Tingey, R.J. (editor). The geology of Antarctica. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 588–616.Google Scholar
Blay, S.K.N. 1992. New trends in the protection of the Antarctic environment: the 1991 Madrid Protocol. American Journal of International Law 86: 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowett, D.W. 1982. Jurisdiction: changing patterns of authority over activities and resources. British Year Book of International Law 53: 1–26.Google Scholar
Bush, W.M. 1982. Antarctica and international law: a collection of inter-state and national documents, vol. II. New York, London, and Rome: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
Epperson, C. 1979. International legal issues regarding towing of icebergs. In: Gamble, J.K. Jr,. (editor). Law of the sea: neglected issues. Honolulu: Law of the Sea Institute: 209–239.Google Scholar
Heap, J. (editor). 1990. Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System. Seventh edition. Cambridge: Polar Publications.Google Scholar
Larminie, G. 1991. The mineral potential of Antarctica: the state of the art. ln: Jorgensen-Dahl, A., and østreng, W. (editors). The Antarctic Treaty System in world politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan: 79–93.Google Scholar
Lumb, R. 1986. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Mangone, G.J. 1988. The legal status of ice in international law. In: Wolfrum, R. (editor). Antarctic challenge III. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot: 371–388.Google Scholar
New Zealand. Parliament. 1990. Protected Areas (Prohibition on Mining) Act. No. 00-1. Wellington: New Zealand Government Printery.Google Scholar
Schwerdtfeger, P. 1986. Antarctic icebergs as potential sources of water and energy. In: Wolfrum, R. (editor). Antarctic challenge II. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot: 377–389.Google Scholar
Sweden. Parliament. 1993. Decree for the Protection of Antarctic Environment (Embassy translation, no title).Google Scholar
United Kingdom. Parliament. 1989. Antarctic Minerals Act.UK Statutes 1989, Chapter 21.Google Scholar
United States. Congress. 1990. Antarctic Protection Act of 1990. Public Law No. 101–594. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
United States. Congress. 1993a. Antarctic Environmental Protection Act of 1993. House of Representatives Bill 964. February 1993. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
United States. Congress. 1993b. Antarctic Environmental Protocol Act of 1993. House of Representatives Bill 1066. February 1993. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Victor, P.-E. 1986. Will deserts drink icebergs? UNESCO Courier May-June 1986.Google Scholar