Political shadows cast by the Antarctic curtain

Article in January 2024 Nature have drawn attention to a bold idea originally proposed by Finnish researchers to save the West Antarctic Ice Sheet from melting, which is estimated to have the potential to raise global sea levels by 5 meters. The idea of ​​installing an underground curtain 80 kilometers long and 100 meters high to prevent warm groundwater from entering the glaciers created an international sensation: “What had been a technical debate among some scientists quickly turned into a social debate involving the general public.” says international law researcher at Kobe University SHIBATA Akiho. However, the political dimension has been either completely ignored or dangerously downplayed in the scientific debate, threatening to fuel conflict over a project designed to protect humanity in an environment that has been a model of peaceful international cooperation for more than a century. 60 years old.

As experts on international law governing the peaceful existence of the Antarctic, dedicated to scientific research, Shibata and visiting scientist from the Frankfurt Institute for Peace Research Patrick FLAMM tried to conduct a thorough analysis of the political consequences of the global superproject. Shibata says: “We believe it was important to publish the article within one year of the original proposal, before public debate takes on a life of its own.”

In a policy paper published in the journal international relationsThe Kobe University researcher points out the implications across three main themes: power, sovereignty and security. Concerns about power center on who has the power to make decisions about such a project and what that means for the balance of power in the body that regulates access to Antarctica. Sovereignty issues center around the consequences of existing and dormant territorial claims. And the security issues concern how to practically protect the structure, which, of course, will be considered the critical infrastructure of the planet. Shibata concludes by saying, “This article sheds light on the political and legal “shadows” hidden beneath the fascinating surface of science and technology. However, we believe that members of society need to make decisions about the development of these technologies. technologies based on a deep understanding of such negative aspects.”

While the researchers write that “in the current environment, with growing international rivalry and great power strategic competition, it would be a highly unlikely diplomatic achievement to secure the level of international cooperation… required for the proposed glacial geoengineering infrastructure,” they also note that the way forward is by looking back. In the early 1980s, a simmering conflict over mining guidelines in Antarctica was resolved by the 1991 “Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty,” which actively banned mining in Antarctica indefinitely. This decision set a precedent for parties to the treaty to seek solutions to avoid international disagreements over Antarctica.

However, a law expert from Kobe University is careful to note that a ban is not a default solution. He explains: “Recently, there has been momentum among natural scientists to study such technologies more comprehensively in terms of whether they are even suitable. If in such a deeper scientific and technical debate the argument is that there are social benefits that outweigh the governance risks that we have presented, then again, we, international political scientists and international law scholars, need to be involved in that debate. Perhaps the debate will then no longer be about defending the core principles of the current Antarctic Treaty System when considering this technology. about changing these core principles themselves.”

This research was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant 21K18124) and a Type C Grant for Strategic International Cooperative Research from Kobe University. It was carried out in collaboration with a researcher from the Frankfurt Institute for Peace Research.