Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:56:20.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profiles of national Antarctic operating agencies of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties: an introductory study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Anita Dey-Nuttall
Anita Dey-Nuttall
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB9 2TY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Each Antarctic Treaty Consultative Party established its national Antarctic operating agency in circumstances that were unique to itself. For some of the original members of the Antarctic Treaty, the initial organisations have continued to act as their national Antarctic operators. New members have either delegated responsibility to existing government organisations or have established new bodies to implement their national Antarctic programmes. The organisations selected to assume responsibility for operating the individual national Antarctic programmes, although varied, possess similar attributes and fall into four categories. Thedistinguishing features of these categories are based on the extent of the functions and financial responsibilities adopted by the agencies. By establishing their nature, this study offers a framework for analysis and a basis for further research on the styles and trends in organising national Antarctic programmes.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 33 , Issue 185 , April 1997 , pp. 133 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antarctic Bulletin. 1992. Restructuring of RDRC and DSIR. Antarctic Bulletin 12 (10): 334–335.Google Scholar
Belgian Science Policy Office. 1993. Belgian scientific research programme on the Antarctic: progress report. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy Office.Google Scholar
Beltramino, J.C.M. 1993. The structure and dynamics of Antarctic population. New York: Vantage Press.Google Scholar
British Antarctic Survey. 1991. British scientific research in Antarctica. Cambridge: British Antarctic Survey.Google Scholar
Bush, W.M. 1982. Antarctica and international law: volume I. London, New York, Rome: Oceana.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. and Headland, R.K.. 1991. A history of South African involvment in Antarctica and at the Prince Edward Islands. South African Journal of Antarctic Research 21 (2): 77–91.Google Scholar
Davis, B.W. 1992. Focusing an Antarctic research programme: the Australian experience. Polar Record 28 (164): 51–56.Google Scholar
Department of Arts, Sport, Environment and Tourism. 1992. Antarctic science – the way forward. Report of the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee. Hobart: Antarctic Division, Department of Arts, Sport, Environment and Tourism.Google Scholar
Dey-Nuttall, A. 1994. Origins, development and organisation of national Antarctic programmes — with special reference to the United Kingdom and India. Unpublished PhD thesis. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Elzinga, A. and Bohlin, I.. 1989. The politics of science in polar regions. Ambio 18 (1): 71.Google Scholar
Gautier, P. 1992. Belgium and the Antarctic. Brussels: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Development Cooperation.Google Scholar
Headland, R.K. 1989. Chronological list of Antarctic expeditions and related historical events. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, G. 1989. Progress in Antarctic research in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: Wolfrum, R. (editor). Antarctic challenge II. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot: 229–237.Google Scholar
Klotz, F.G. 1990. America on ice: Antarctic policy issues. Washington, DC: National Defence University Press.Google Scholar
Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute. 1990. Korea and Antarctica. Seoul: Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, Polar Research Center.Google Scholar
Manzoni, M. and Zucchelli, M.. 1991. Italian engagement in Antarctica. Polar Record 27 (161): 121–124.Google Scholar
Nature. 1991. French Antarctic Programme. Nature 349: 553.Google Scholar
NIPR. 1982. Japanese Antarctic Programme. Tokyo: National Institute of Polar Research.Google Scholar
Norsk Polarinstitutt. 1990. Norsk Polarinstitutt Årbok 1989. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt.Google Scholar
Office of Polar Programs. 1990. The United States Antarctic Program. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Polar Commission of Finland. 1992. The Finnish Polar Programme 1993–1997. Helsinki: Polar Commission of Finland.Google Scholar
Polar Record. 1964. Institute Antártico Chileno. Polar Record 12 (78): 311.Google Scholar
Ross Dependency Research Committee. 1993. Antarctic research, five-yearscientific research programme 1993–1998: priorities for the 1990s. Wellington: Ross Dependency Research Committee.Google Scholar
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 1988. Annual report to SCAR, May 1988. Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
SCAR. 1987. SCAR manual 1987. Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic ResearchGoogle Scholar
SCAR. 1996. Stations of SCAR nations operating in the Antarctic, winter 1995. SCAR Bulletin 120: 3–5.Google Scholar
State Antarctic Committee. 1990. China's Antarctic research. Beijing: State Antarctic Committee.Google Scholar
Stichting Onderzoek der Zee. 1992. Major themes of Netherlands Antarctic Research 1994–2000. Draft concept. Unpublished report to the Dutch government. Committee for Antarctic Research.Google Scholar