The scientific discussions surrounding the proposal of a large underwater curtain to shield Antarctic ice sheets from melting are missing a crucial political viewpoint. A research team from Kobe University believes that it is essential for the scientific community to proactively engage with significant issues regarding authority, sovereignty, and security in order to prevent potential international conflicts over this protected region.
The scientific discussions surrounding the proposal of a large underwater curtain to shield Antarctic ice sheets from melting are missing a crucial political viewpoint. A research team from Kobe University believes that it is essential for the scientific community to proactively engage with significant issues regarding authority, sovereignty, and security in order to prevent potential international conflicts over this protected region.
A January 2024 article in Nature highlighted an ambitious proposal initially put forward by Finnish researchers aimed at preventing the West Antarctic Ice Sheet from melting, which is predicted to raise sea levels by as much as 5 meters globally. This idea of creating an underwater curtain measuring 80 kilometers in length and 100 meters in height to block warm subterranean water from reaching glaciers made waves internationally. According to SHIBATA Akiho, an international law researcher at Kobe University, “What started as a technical conversation among certain scientists quickly evolved into a societal debate involving the public.” However, the political dimensions of this scientific discussion have often been overlooked or minimized, risking the potential for conflict surrounding a project intended to benefit humanity in a region that has represented peaceful international cooperation for over six decades.
As experts in the international laws governing the peaceful nature of Antarctica dedicated to scientific research, Shibata and Patrick FLAMM, a visiting scholar from the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, worked to compile a comprehensive analysis of the political implications of this major project. Shibata emphasizes, “We thought it was crucial to publish a paper within a year of the initial proposal, before the societal discussion gained momentum.”
The recently published policy paper in the journal International Affairs by the Kobe University researcher identifies potential implications across three main areas: authority, sovereignty, and security. The authority concerns revolve around who has the power to make decisions regarding the implementation of such a project and how this may affect the power dynamics in the governing bodies overseeing access to Antarctic resources. Sovereignty issues focus on the impact this might have on existing and potential territorial claims. The security aspect raises questions about how to effectively protect a structure considered vital global infrastructure. Shibata summarizes the findings, stating: “This paper brings attention to the political and legal issues that remain obscured behind the alluring advancements in science and technology. We believe it’s essential for society members to make decisions about these technologies grounded in a full awareness of their negative implications.”
While the researchers note that the current environment, characterized by increasing international competition and strategic rivalries, makes the attainment of international cooperation necessary for the proposed glacial geoengineering projects seem highly unlikely, they also suggest a path forward by reflecting on history. In the early 1980s, a contentious debate over guidelines for Antarctic mineral extraction was resolved through the 1991 “Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty,” which effectively indefinitely banned mining in the region. This precedent allowed treaty parties to collaboratively seek resolutions that prevent international disputes concerning Antarctica.
Shibata from Kobe University is careful to clarify that prohibition should not be considered the automatic response. He notes: “Recently, there has been a push among natural scientists to explore these technologies from a more multilateral perspective and assess their overall appropriateness. If an in-depth scientific and technical evaluation concludes that the social advantages outweigh the governance risks we’ve identified, it’s essential for us as political scientists and international legal experts to be part of that dialogue. This discussion might then shift from merely upholding the foundational principles of the current Antarctic Treaty System while contemplating this technology, to potentially amending those fundamental principles.”
This research received funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (grant 21K18124) and the Kobe University Strategic International Collaborative Research Grant Type C, in collaboration with a researcher from the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.
