Who Owns Antarctica – And Why Should It Matter to Climate Activists?

By Ruth Elizabeth Morris

On the surface, Antarctica seems like a desolate wasteland. Early Antarctic explorer Apsley Cherry-Garrard even described his time on the continent by writing in his memoir, “polar exploration is at once the cleanest and most isolated way of having a bad time which has been devised.” Many researchers and explorers in Antarctica have compared it to Mars, or to the moon, because Antarctica is nothing like other territories on earth.

But there is a reason many scientists jump at the chance to do research at the bottom of the world. Antarctica is rich in unique biodiversity, mineral deposits, and fuel resources, making it a covetable land mass for geopolitical players angling to find new opportunities for economic development.

For now, those players will have to wait. The Antarctic Treaty classifies Antarctica as “…a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.” Since 1959, Antarctica has been set aside for peace-keeping missions and scientific research that must be made freely available. Drilling for minerals or energy sources is currently prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty’s addition of the 1998 Protocol on Environmental Protection. In theory, the current version of the Antarctic Treaty promises that no single country can claim the territory, no corporations or private citizens can buy pieces of property, and climate activists can find reassurance because the land cannot be over-developed by entrepreneurs looking to make a quick dollar at the cost of a delicate ecosystem. In practice, that treaty is temporary – and it expires sooner than you might think.

The Antarctic Treaty becomes modifiable in 2048. More specifically, Article 25 contains a caveat that once 50 years from the origin of the treaty have passed, any participating country may call a conference to review and make changes to the current treaty’s protocol. So, what happens if land goes unclaimed and unprotected in the 21st century? We may be working hard as global citizens to unpack our collective responsibility for centuries of colonialist settlement practices, but most property law still identifies first occupancy as a central tenant that justifies property rights. If that principle gets applied to Antarctica, it does seem likely a scramble for ownership amongst the world’s economic heavy hitters is unavoidable. In which case: who got there “first,” and is that enough to lay a claim of ownership?

Determining first occupancy is murky at best. Do we prioritize early indigenous populations in the Southern Hemisphere? The country with the first documented explorer to set foot on the land mass? The first country to see an explorer successfully reach the South Pole? The first country to build on and develop the land?

Some countries who have signed the treaty and are currently working on research in Antarctica have overlapping claims of ownership. For example, Australia claims that 42% of the continent is theirs based on early exploration and possession, as well as legal transfer of some island territories from the British Empire in the 1930’s. China also could stake a claim partially based on the property justification of labor – they’ve built 4 research stations in Antarctica in the last 30 years, and a fifth station is currently under construction. Though other countries may have more (Argentina has 6 permanent research stations!), China’s building projects have escalated during the pandemic while other countries have slowed their development.

For now, Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty addresses these claims on a basic level and forbids action be taken to assert those claims while the current treaty is still in effect:

No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

For those who worry about climate change, ownership of Antarctica matters. Until now, Antarctica has played an essential part in reducing the speed of global warming. Ice covers 97.6% of the continent, which plays a role in reflecting heat away from the earth’s surface. It also stands as a sort-of last defense against sea-level rise so long as the ice sheets remain intact. Unlike the ice at the north pole, much of which melts and refreezes each year, ice at the south pole stays more steadily the same – partly because it sits on land instead of floating, as its northern counterpart does. If the Antarctic ice shelf were to melt, the likelihood if refreezing is slim, and the loss would both contribute to significant seal level rise and decrease the amount of sunlight reflected back into the atmosphere instead of being absorbed directly into the already-warming ocean. Should the rules governing development on the continent change – allowing for private development, particularly the currently-prohibited drilling – the integrity of the ice shelf will be compromised, and melting grows more probable. To put it in perspective: the Antarctic ice shelf contains almost 6 million cubic miles of frozen water, which, if melted, could cause sea levels to rise 200 feet.

Most climate activists understand rising temperatures are already melting ice around the world. Resulting sea level rise has already contributed to coastal flooding and increased both frequency and severity of natural disasters due to changing weather patterns. On the surface – pun intended – losing the ice that currently covers the Antarctic land mass seems like an obvious problem.

Look below the surface and a less obvious problem arises: unclaimed land is a hot commodity, and only gets more valuable as global warming progresses. International law doesn’t currently offer meaningful remedies for refugees fleeing climate-related disasters, and those disasters are compounding many governments’ fears about livable land for their citizens. Global temperatures are projected to rise by 2.5 C by 2050 if world governments do not take collective action immediately. Higher temperatures mean higher sea levels – and more displaced people as a result.

This danger bears asking a better question. Instead of asking who has a claim to ownership because they got to Antarctica first, perhaps we should ask instead –

Who needs it most?