Desarrollo de la Antártica

EL DESARROLLO DE LA ANTÁJtTICA of working in rhe Antarctic Treaty l<\rea. tl refer particulary to the areas of land south of lato 600S. If we widen the forum of those entitled to vote at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (and 1 do not think this can be avoided), we sha11 have to question both the rule of unanimity prescribed by tibe Treaty and the competence of these Consultative Meetings to initiate and draft formal conventions open to accession by a larger group of nations. The rule of unanimity embodied in Artide IX of the Treaty is, in my opinión, one of the chief reasons for successful ¡progress during the past decade. lt is important to appreciate that the Treaty works by general concensus agreed mthout dissenting view. 1 cannot ¡¡,void emphas– izing this point as strongly as possible. It is true that this procedure has led to some fierce arguments at Consultative Meetings. But many of these have been due to misunderstandings; often due to inadequate communications or inadequate prior consultation. The need for prior consultation is most important. Experience .has shown that it has never been productive to spring new ideas on a Consul– tative Meeting and expect positiye results at that same meeting. IDelegates work under instructions, and ít is difficult -if not Ím¡possible- to get some 01 these altered at t'he last moment by telegraph. If instructions have been drawn up under misunderstand– ings, there is little prospect of agreement 'until at least the next Consultative Meeting two years latero We now know that the most significant agreements under the Treaty take at least sÍX years to pusb through. A new item is aired at one meeting (where nothing is decided except to put it on the Agenda for tJhe next). At the second meeting it may be discussed in some detail, or be shelved. At the rhird meeting there may possibly emerge a Recommendation to governments, but in some cases this has 'become so watered down from the original idea that it is almost useless. Even then, it may take a further two years before unanimous approval can wake rhe agreement hinding on governments, and then further years must pass while the appropriate harmonized national legislation can be passed tJhrough our widel f differing constitutional procedures. Taken togetiher, these procedure3 are mudh too slüw to cope with the rapidly increasing activities which are now taking ¡place in the Antarctic. The speeding up of Antarctic Treaty procedures should therefore, in my opIOlon, be accorded a much higher priorit!y. A significant development to 354