Roberts Peder
Cultural Studies and Languages University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway.
Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm Sweden.
Geogr J. 2023 Mar;189(1):18-24. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12367. Epub 2020 Dec 19.
This paper explores whether a central plank of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) - the science criterion - is threatened by anthropogenic climate change. It begins by situating the origins of the ATS within the context of the International Geophysical Year (IGY), and the privileged position that science obtained within first the IGY and later the ATS. This extends to science functioning as the dominant currency through which states may ascend to the level of consultative parties (CPs), the highest level of authority within the ATS. Within this model Antarctica functions as a laboratory, a metaphor with a long history in Antarctica, reinforced by the Madrid Protocol and its strong focus on maintaining environmental boundaries and by a perception that Antarctica otherwise plays a minimal role in global affairs. Much of the research in Antarctica focuses on climate change and indeed has been important in establishing its scope and magnitude. But climate change also threatens both Antarctica itself and - by extension - the many low-lying areas of the world that would be affected by rising sea levels caused by melting Antarctic ice. Given Antarctica may no longer be so removed from the rest of the world, is this sufficient reason to revisit the centrality of science to legitimate participation in Antarctic governance? The paper considers alternatives to the current system, including assigning authority within the ATS to states affected by climate change. It concludes that while the science criterion remains viable, it rests on a moral as well as practical foundation that could be undermined if the right to authority over Antarctica remains disconnected from the actions that cause changes to the continent.
本文探讨了《南极条约体系》（ATS）的核心支柱——科学标准——是否受到人为气候变化的威胁。文章开篇阐述了南极条约体系起源于国际地球物理年（IGY）的背景，以及科学在国际地球物理年乃至后来的南极条约体系中所获得的特权地位。这一特权延伸至科学成为一种主导货币，各国可借此提升至协商国（CPs）的级别，而协商国是南极条约体系内的最高权威级别。在此模式下，南极洲充当着一个实验室，这一隐喻在南极洲有着悠久的历史，《马德里议定书》及其对维护环境边界的高度关注，以及南极洲在全球事务中作用甚微的认知，都强化了这一隐喻。南极洲的许多研究都聚焦于气候变化，并且在确定气候变化的范围和程度方面确实发挥了重要作用。但气候变化也威胁着南极洲本身，进而威胁到世界上许多地势低洼的地区，这些地区会受到南极冰层融化导致海平面上升的影响。鉴于南极洲可能不再与世界其他地区如此隔绝，这是否足以成为重新审视科学对于合法参与南极治理的核心地位的理由呢？本文考虑了现行体系的替代方案，包括将南极条约体系内的权力赋予受气候变化影响的国家。文章得出结论，虽然科学标准仍然可行，但它基于道德以及实际基础，如果对南极洲的管辖权仍然与导致该大陆发生变化的行为脱节，那么这一基础可能会受到破坏。
