Counterplans General Stuff

AT: Antarctic Treaty

The treaty doesn’t address territory claims—territorial claims are inevitable

Yin 6-19-12 (Wenquin Yin, Chinese Journal of International Law, Moratorium in International Law, June 29th, 2012, http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/04/18/chinesejil.jms032.full)

The intent and purpose of the moratorium on performance or furtherance of conflicting claims are not to make any judgment on the claims, or to settle dispute resulting from the conflicting claims, but to freeze, shelve or set aside dispute and postpone the final settlement of dispute. The Antarctic Treaty is a case in point. According to Article IV(1) of the Antarctic Treaty, the Treaty will have neither positive nor negative effects on the asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica as well as on positions of any contracting party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of such asserted rights or claims. Under Article IV(2), the status quo relating to claims is frozen, “acts or activities taking place” while the Treaty is in force have nothing to do with claims, and no new claims and enlargement of existing claims are permissible. In negotiating the Antarctic Treaty, “claimants do not generally favour any solutions that involve a renunciation of their claims”,33 and at the same time, they had no idea of settling their respective claims. In achieving the fundamental objectives of the peaceful uses of the continent and the promotion of scientific research and co-operation, negotiating parties tended to “sidestep particularly contentious issues relating to territorial jurisdiction.”34 As it stands today, the Antarctic Treaty successfully suspends disputes of claims and counterclaims on Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty has been generally considered a precedent for co-existence, and provided the framework for international activities and a basis for stability in Antarctica.35 “The key to reaching this desirable result was Article IV in the Antarctic Treaty.”36 However, the territory claims are far from dead. The seven claimants have maintained their positions.37 For example, the United Kingdom, as a claimant, claimed that “appurtenant to Antarctica there exist areas of continental shelf the extent of which has yet to be defined”, and reserved the right to submit information to the Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf thereof, when it submitted information relating to the continental shelf of Ascension Island on 9 May 2008.38 Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty “just postpones the question of settlement of territorial sovereignty but does not exclude in principle the application of the concept of territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.”39 In case the Antarctic Treaty system collapses, the issue of territorial claim disputes will definitely arise again.

ATS strong now—cooperation over NZ proposals

FW 9/6 [Fuseworks Media News, New Zealand, “NZ seeks to protect Antarctica's Ross Sea region”, http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/nz-seeks-protect-antarcticas-ross-sea-region/5/133999, 2012]

The New Zealand proposal protects ecologically important features and habitats, including winter ice free areas (known as polynyas), the entire Victoria Coast from McMurdo Sound to Cape Adare, the Balleny Islands, and almost the entire Ross Sea continental shelf. Mr McCully says New Zealand discussed the feasibility of a joint proposal with the United States, but each country will offer a separate proposal for CCAMLR’s consideration. "New Zealand and the United States have a close relationship in the Antarctic Treaty System. The proposals that we are putting forward share many common features, and I have made a commitment to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that we will continue to work closely with the United States to achieve optimal outcomes from the CCAMLR process." To achieve a protected area, every CCAMLR member country must agree. "The Ross Sea region is among the most pristine natural regions in the world and of tremendous conservation and scientific value to current and future generations," Mr McCully says. In designing New Zealand’s MPA proposal, the government listened to the views of domestic stakeholders, including environmental NGOs, the fishing industry, members of the science community, and also to other CCAMLR members.

Treaty fails – no one abides by its regulations
Voxy 9-18 (Ross Sea needs to be policed to stop illegal fishing – expert, 2012, http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/ross-sea-needs-be-policed-stop-illegal-fishing-expert/5/135122)

Antarctic Treaty countries need to stop illegal and unregulated fishing in the Ross Sea, University of Canterbury expert, Professor Bryan Storey said today. He was reacting to comments by a Philippa Ross, a descendent of the man who discovered the Ross Sea. She said the New Zealand Government was destroying her legacy by failing to protect one of the last intact marine ecosystems in the world. British naval officer and polar explorer Sir James Clarke Ross discovered the sea in 1841. But Ross's great-great-great-granddaughter Philippa Ross said today the Ross Sea environment was being threatened by government policies. Earlier this month the Government rejected a proposal from the United States for a marine reserve that would have offered greater protection than New Zealand wanted for the Antarctic toothfish in the Ross Sea. New Zealand companies take a large proportion of the annual Ross Sea toothfish catch - last year they landed 730 tonnes with an export value of $20 million.

AT: South China Sea

Arctic treaties fail to address trade, sovereignty, and environmental issues - means no SCS solvency

Kao 14 – Shih-Ming, Post-doctoral Fellow at The Center for Marine Policy Studies, National Sun Yat-sen Univ., Kaohsiung, Taiwan – dissertation at University of Delaware , “Regional Cooperation in the Mediterranean and the Caribbean Seas: Lessons Learned and Possible Alternatives to the South China Sea Disputes” proquest // JV

In addition, the Arctic Council has no authority to adopt legally-binding resolutions for shipping in the region. This competency rests primarily with IMO. It also does not address fishing, a serious threat to marine environment and biodiversity; and it has neither compliance nor enforcement mechanisms.674 Furthermore, the Arctic Council has no mandate to address sovereignty issues related to the extended continental shelf claims recently raised for the oil and gas reserves underlying the region. These restrictions make the Arctic Council a relatively toothless forum for the discussion of select policy issues, a mechanism lacking authority to make decisions, and likewise lacking the resources needed to initiate and carry out projects of its own.675 Therefore, the question of whether the Arctic Council is sufficient to address the huge pressures being raised by climate change is worthy of consideration.