No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Antarctic Treaty as a temporal order
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 September 2019
Abstract
Diplomats, officials, scientists and other actors working with the Antarctic Treaty System have not simply negotiated a range of measures for regulating human access to the region in a physical sense. They are also continually negotiating a cultural order, one in which time is central. Antarctic actors are aware that the Treaty did not once exist and may cease to exist sometime in the future. They are conscious of environmental change. Each actor tries to elevate their standing and power in the system by deploying temporal ideas and discourses in their interactions with each other: bringing their histories into negotiations, trying to control the idea of the future. This article will map three temporalities within Treaty history: first, the deployment and potency of histories and futures, their relative rhythms and lengths; second, permanence and expiration, the questions and politics of how long the Treaty should or might last; and third, the periodisation of the Treaty period, both among actors themselves and among scholars studying Antarctica.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
Antonello, A. (2019). The Greening of Antarctica: Assembling an International Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brangham, W., Fritz, M., & Carpeaux, E. (2019). Can Antarctica remain a refuge for science and peace? PBS News Hour. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/can-antarctica-remain-a-refuge-for-science-and-peace.Google Scholar
Conference on Antarctica (1959). Verbatim committee meeting transcripts, October–November. Conference on Antarctica, US Delegation Program Records, Record Group 43. College Park: US National Archives and Records Administration.Google Scholar
Erceg, D. (2017). Explorers of a different kind: a history of Antarctic tourism 1966–2016. (PhD thesis), Australian National University.Google Scholar
Finney, P. (2018). Narratives and bodies: culture beyond the cultural turn. International History Review, 40(3), 609–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, T. (2007). Slicing the Silence: Voyaging to Antarctica. Sydney: UNSW Press.Google Scholar
Hanessian, J. (1960). The Antarctic Treaty 1959. International and Comparative Law Quarterly
, 9(3), 436–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Goff, J. (2015). Must We Divide History Into Periods? (DeBevoise, M. B., Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leane, E. (2012). Antarctica in Fiction: Imaginative Narratives of the Far South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reilly, J. (2017). The Technocratic Antarctic: An Ethnography of Scientific Expertise and Environmental Governance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, S. (2015). Countries Rush for Upper Hand in Antarctica. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/29/world/countries-rush-for-upper-hand-antarctica.html
Google Scholar
Shimazu, N. (2014). Diplomacy as theatre: staging the Bandung Conference of 1955. Modern Asian Studies, 48(1), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shortis, E. (2018). Saving the last continent: environmentalists, celebrities and states in the campaign for a World Park Antarctica, 1978–1991. (PhD thesis), The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
van der Watt, L.-M., & Swart, S. (2016). The Whiteness of Antarctica: Race and South Africa’s Antarctic History. In Roberts, P., van der Watt, L.-M., & Howkins, A. (Eds.), Antarctica and the Humanities (pp. 125–156). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar