Background of Antarctic Treaty and Protocol on Environmental Protection
The main of this research paper is to prepare the argument on the behalf of appellant (Australian Conservation foundation). After assessing all the details and case study on the validation of the Antarctic treaty 1959, there are several Arguments are present on behalf of the Appellant.
1. The Appellant who is Australian Conservation foundation argued that the treaty made by them which is Antarctic treaty 1959 was completely invalid and according to the rule established by the law. This act is invalid and does not comply with the all legal rule formation case.
2. They argued that the treaty is formed on the terms and conditions of the Constitution which states under article 7 about the activity which are prohibited under the Protocol on Environment Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991.
The Article states as: Any activity relating to the mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited. It is done with a view to strengthen the economic and society at large.
3. They argued that the OZ mining has been granted written authorisation by the minister to conduct scientific and exploratory activity within the Australian Antarctic Territory under Section of the Act. This was the privileged given to the OZ mining for its activities.
4. They argued further that the New Zealand mining has received the similar authorisation under the equivalent New Zealand legislation. This made the validity of the treaty authorised act on the part of the appellant and this act is not valid under the law.
5. They argued that the treaty was designed to protect the continent from military activity, promote scientific cooperation and suspend the question of sovereignty over the continent which was prohibitory objective on the part of the appellant and was invalid under the act.
6. They further argued that the treaty was increasingly going successful and it led to series of subsequent dealings with the matter relating to the Antarctic seals, living resources, marine and environmental protection.
7. They argued that the sub section (1) include the activities which are included in the ‘scientific and exploratory activity’ which includes:
-
- Seismic testing
- Magnetic susceptibility testing
- Conductivity Testing
- Directional core drilling
The appellant concluded in August 2016 a bilateral treaty to jointly conduct preliminary exploration of mineral deposits in the area of Australian Antarctic Territory known as George V Land and the Ross Dependency know as Victoria Land which was claimed by New Zealand. These areas were the rice deposits of crude oil.
And they also conducted a feasibility study of the cost associated with the mineral extraction and the similarly a detailed environmental impact assessment by the independent scientist.
These all tests were in accordance with the scientific test mentioned in sub section (1) of section 11. It fulfils the conditions mentioned in Article 5 of the constitution as well which states the explorative scientific test on the ‘seismic activity, magnetic susceptibility test and conductivity within the area for the purposes of preliminary exploration.
In context with the given case, it is also analysed that on September 10 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) issued a Resolution declaring the bilateral treaty between Australia and New Zealand as being ‘in breach of each State’s obligations under Article 7 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty’. This was done in support of the argument and also shows Australian Antarctic Territory (scientific Exploration) Act 2016 is constitutionally invalid and should not have any legal binding on the associated persons.
Invalidity of the Treaty according to the Australian Conservation Foundation
8. They argued further that they used the directions of the core drilling for the rock sampling which is mentioned in the article 6 of the act.
It is given in the act that any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited and should not be promoted. However, the activity taken by Australian Conservation Foundation is done to strengthen the effective utilization of the resources and promote the interest of the society at large.
The next argument from the appellant was that the legality of the act says that the Minister for Environment introduced the Australian Antarctic Territory (Scientific Exploration) bill 2016 into parliament on August 29. This act describes it as an ‘Act to implement a bilateral treaty with New Zealand regulating scientific exploration within the Antarctic Treaty Area. This argument legalise the previous two arguments regarding the bilateral treaty and the activities conducted through that. This was done with a view to promote the bilateral treaty in two areas.
9. They argued that the principle section of the Act which is section 11 says that :
i) Any person (whether natural or corporate) may only undertake scientific and exploratory activity within the Australian Antarctic Territory with the written authorisation of the Minister for Environment.
ii) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘ scientific and exploratory activity’ may include the following activities:
-
- Seismic testing;
- Magnetic susceptibility testing;
- Conductivity Testing;
- Directional core drilling.
The appellant has fulfilled all the condition of the above mentioned provision and conduct its activities according to the rule and regulations of the act. Therefore, it could be inferred that the decision should be given in the favour of the appellant.
10. After assessing all the details and based case study, it could be inferred that the appellant argue that the resolution issued by the defendant who is United Nations Security Council (UNSC) declaring that the bilateral treaty between Australia and New Zealand as being in the breach of each state’s obligation under Article 7 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty’. It was given that which was completely wrong as it states the legality of the conduct of the treaty according to the obligation mentioned in Article 7 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.
11. The appellant concluded by challenging the decision on the basis that the Australian Antarctic Territory (scientific Exploration) Act 2016 is constitutionally invalid and, thus, the Minister’s decision is of no legal effect.
After analysing all the above facts and related laws, it could be inferred that this act is invalid and in the best interest of the society and environment at large it should be constituted invalid. The main reason of supporting the argument is based on the fact that Australian Antarctic Territory (scientific Exploration) Act 2016 is constitutionally invalid and therefore, all the legal decisions passed by the Minister would be invalid.
References
Bilder, Richard B. Control of criminal conduct in Antarctica. Antractica:(Virginia Law Review, 1966) 231
Dodds, Klaus, and Alan D. Hemmings. “Recent developments in relations between the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic in the South Atlantic/Antarctic region.” Polar Record50.2 (2014): 119
Haward, Marcus. “15. The originals: the role and influence of the original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty” Handbook on the Politics of Antarctica (2017): 232.
Hemmings, Alan D., et al “Nationalism in today’s Antarctic” The Yearbook of Polar Law Online 7.1 (2015): 531
Jacquet, Jennifer, et al (2016) “‘Rational use’ in Antarctic waters” Marine Policy 28-34
Leal, Guilherme “Allocation of environmental law-making powers in Brazil” (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2016) 108
Rothwell, Donald R., and Tim Stephens The international law of the sea (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016)
Tsai, Pei-Lun The application of international human rights law to unrecognised entities: the case of Taiwan (Diss. University of Nottingham, 2015)
Willetts, Peter “South Atlantic Council Occasional Papers” (Routledge, 2016)
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
