Publications
-
This book refers to the foundations for the empirical analysis by grounding the inquiry into the circle of Arctic knowledge production and the science/politics interface in a theoretical background that we establish on the basis of various approaches primarily drawn from the fields of International Relations (IR) and Sociology. While at the core we look for the formation and re-production of worldviews in and between science and politics, we also pay particular attention to important boundary processes and boundary organisations in order to explore how Arctic knowledge is validated, shared and transferred both within and between science and politics. In doing so, we also need to tie back these concepts to the even broader (and older) debates on the operative autonomy of different (functionally differentiated) social systems and the resulting problems of communication. After all, to put it bluntly, the often-heard frustration on the side of scientists (‘we have all the results, but the politicians won’t listen’) is not a frustration that would be peculiar to, for example, glaciologists working on the mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet. Rather, it points to rather basic issues of the autonomy of social systems as well as the possibilities and limits of directed steering. We will draw from these extensive debates in order to inquire how, and to which degree, the ‘boundary work’ between science and politics in our circle could be improved. We deliberately take such a conceptually rather ‘deep’ approach in order to forestall assumptions according to which the problem of hand might be reduced to a problem of simply ‘communicating science better’ (and, most notably, hiring more communications staff or training scientists to become better communicators).
-
This entry examines the historical development, institutional structure, and contemporary role of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat within the Antarctic Treaty System. It traces the evolution of debates surrounding the establishment of a permanent administrative body, highlighting the initial resistance of Treaty Parties to creating an intergovernmental bureaucracy and the reliance on rotating administrative arrangements following the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. Growing membership, increasing complexity of Antarctic governance, and the adoption of the 1991 Madrid Protocol gradually strengthened support for a permanent secretariat, culminating in its formal establishment in 2001 and operational commencement in 2004. The chapter analyses the political negotiations that shaped the Secretariat’s creation, including disputes over its location and concerns regarding sovereignty and institutional authority. It further explores the Secretariat’s organisational structure, funding mechanisms, and key functions, such as supporting Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, facilitating intersessional work, maintaining institutional records, and enhancing communication among Parties. The chapter concludes that the Secretariat has significantly improved administrative efficiency, institutional continuity, and information management within the Antarctic Treaty System while remaining firmly subordinate to the decision-making authority of the Treaty Parties.
-
Despite its broad significance for Earth systems, Antarctica has always had more limited political relevance. This limitation is most explicit in relation to the profile of its main actors: the Global North has been a predominant participant in the history of the continent’s regime. A South American perspective offers a counterpoint to this narrative: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay engage directly in decision-making and provide an alternative to an “unreachable” or “exclusive” Antarctic. Likewise, Colombia and Venezuela demonstrate how new actors are pursuing stronger involvement through regional cooperative ties. Mindful of their diverse Antarctic histories, this chapter discusses South American engagement in Antarctica by focusing on how South American geopolitical thought entitles actors from the global periphery to engage in a once-exclusive region. I first introduce the main assumptions of South America’s geopolitical thought, then briefly recount the individual historical journeys of these South American actors in Antarctica. I demonstrate how South America has organised itself regionally through the creation of institutions, such as RAPAL, and cooperative initiatives between national programmes. I conclude with the potential influence of non-regional actors—such as China and the United States—on the future South American geopolitical imaginary of Antarctica.
-
Since 1961 the Antarctic Treaty has been acknowledged internationally as the legitimate forum through which decision-making for the region takes place. Membership growth and the establishment of new conventions are strong indicators of how this international regime has overcome challenges to its functioning, while preserving peace maintenance, scientific cooperation and environmental protection as the main pillars of Antarctic governance. For this special volume of Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Science, this work provides an overview of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings’ operation, highlighting how they established specific diplomatic practices: the progressive introduction of issues, the avoidance of contentious issues, and “watered-down”, ambiguous text, all of which have enabled parties to circumvent conflict and reach consensual agreement. Based on analysis of the Antarctic Treaty Database, this work shows the main practices developed through the Antarctic Treaty and concludes that the adaptability of Treaty Parties to manage challenges over the last 60 years will unquestionably continue to underpin the regime.
-
Antarctica presents an exceptional governance framework. The expansion of sovereignty and territoriality primary institutions demanded a different norm localisation from international society, creating practices and identities unique to the region. In order to preserve peace, delimited territories with exclusive exercise of authority could not be replicated. This conundrum led to the suspension of sovereignty discussions by the Antarctic Treaty, and an emphasis on activities which could accommodate multiple understandings of authority. Scientific research and environmental protection provided the avenue which consolidated the Treaty by reinforcing its exceptional character. Decision-making has been exclusive to Consultative parties, a status awarded for those able to demonstrate substantive scientific research. Likewise, environmental protection has defined Antarctic territorial organisation by creating different protected areas. Nevertheless, joint proposals are still low. Therefore, this work concludes that the institutionalisation of the Antarctic Treaty has stabilised, and concrete cooperation still has a long way to go.
-
This chapter examines the evolution of Brazil’s engagement with Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), reassessing Jack Child’s influential description of the country as a “modest, but intensifying” Antarctic power. It argues that, although Brazil has consolidated its presence through scientific activities, logistical operations and participation in Antarctic institutions, the intensification of its engagement has been limited. The chapter traces the tension between two competing approaches: a territorial and geopolitical perspective associated with Frontage Theory, and the diplomatic-pragmatic approach promoted by the Ministry of External Relations, which prioritised international cooperation and participation in the ATS. It then analyses the institutional development of Brazil’s Antarctic programme, including its accession to the Antarctic Treaty, achievement of consultative status, establishment of scientific and logistical structures, and adoption of an increasingly environmental orientation. Despite these advances, Brazil’s participation has remained constrained by fragmented institutional responsibilities, uncertain funding, reactive policymaking and comparatively limited activity within Antarctic decision-making forums. The chapter concludes that Brazil’s Antarctic involvement is best characterised as persistently modest rather than steadily intensifying, illustrating how domestic institutional arrangements shape the capacity of emerging powers to translate geopolitical ambitions into sustained influence within international governance regimes.
-
A consolidação do Sistema do Tratado Antártico (STA) fundamenta-se na legitimidade de seus atributos, mesmo quando estes não são considerados democráticos. Assim, com base nos debates sobre a viabilidade democrática em organizações internacionais e no papel dos atores externos epistêmicos em legitimar instituições de governança global, analisa-se a trajetória do STA e a problemática de seu déficit democrático, destacando as críticas à sua hierarquia interna e a seu exclusivismo externo. Conclui-se que o STA é bem-sucedido devido à necessidade de expertise para seu processo decisório e à legitimidade aferida por organismos científicos que orientam o caráter pacífico das atividades.
-
(co-authored with Elaine Meire Vilela)
A proposta geral desse artigo é apresentar uma análise descritiva dos estrangeiros autorizados a se estabelecer temporária ou permanentemente no Brasil, durante o período de 2005 a 2011, bem como sua relação com a política migratória brasileira. Para isso, foram utilizados os microdados da Coordenação Geral de Imigração (CNIg) do Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego. Considerando a literatura apresentada, o intuito é identificar se há uma tendência de seletividade dos estrangeiros autorizados a entrarem no país. Apesar de tal fato não poder ser testado, pois não se dispõe de informações sobre o perfil dos candidatos que tiveram seus pedidos de autorizações negados, é possível inferir sobre tal questão a partir dos dados analisados. Os resultados mostram que as autorizações concedidas são majoritariamente para trabalhadores profissionais e investidores, homens, altamente qualificados e de países, em geral, mais desenvolvidos (norte-americanos, europeus e asiáticos), com destino para o Sudeste. Esse perfil dos autorizados pode ser explicado, em parte, pela política migratória brasileira, que continua a ser restritiva e seletiva. Embora não se possa identificar a origem da seletividade – se o governo brasileiro, o mercado de trabalho (de origem e/ou de destino), ou as próprias solicitações dos estrangeiros –, verifica-se que a política migratória brasileira assegura tal seletividade, independentemente de quem venha a ser o agente dessa ação.