Antarctic vs Arctic Management — Comparing Governance Systems
Part of Cold Environments — Threats & Management · GCSE GCSE Geography revision
This comparison covers Antarctic vs Arctic Management — Comparing Governance Systems within Cold Environments — Threats & Management for GCSE Geography. Revise Cold Environments — Threats & Management in Cold Environments for GCSE Geography with 15 exam-style questions and 20 flashcards. This topic appears regularly enough that it should still be part of a steady revision cycle. It is section 10 of 16 in this topic. Use this comparison to connect the idea to the wider topic before moving on to questions and flashcards.
Topic position
Section 10 of 16
Practice
15 questions
Recall
20 flashcards
⚖️ Antarctic vs Arctic Management — Comparing Governance Systems
| Factor | Antarctica | Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Main governance body | Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) — 54 signatories | Arctic Council — 8 member states (non-binding) |
| Legal status | Binding international treaty; territorial claims frozen | No binding treaty; sovereignty of member states applies |
| Military activity | Banned by Antarctic Treaty Article I | Permitted; Russia has actively militarised the Arctic since 2015 |
| Mineral extraction | Banned until at least 2048 (Madrid Protocol 1991) | Active and growing: oil platforms, pipelines, natural gas extraction |
| Marine management | CCAMLR (1982): ecosystem-based fishing quotas; Ross Sea MPA (1.55 million km²) | Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (2021): 16-year fishing ban in high seas; no MPA equivalent |
| Tourism regulation | IAATO (voluntary industry association) sets guidelines; 74,000 visitors/season (2022–23) | National regulation only; 1.2M visitors/year to Svalbard |
| Territorial claims | Frozen under Article IV — neither recognised nor renounced | Active competing claims (Russia, Canada, Denmark/Greenland) under UNCLOS |
| Indigenous peoples | No indigenous population — not relevant | Inuit, Saami, Nenets and others have Permanent Participant status at Arctic Council |
| Enforcement | Voluntary compliance only; no independent enforcement | National jurisdiction; virtually no international enforcement |
| Climate change addressed? | Not in treaty framework — requires global action | Not in Arctic Council mandate — acknowledged in Kiruna Declaration (2013) but no binding action |
| Overall assessment | Strong framework for what it covers; major gap on climate change and tourism | Weak framework; competing national interests undermine collective action; Russia's 2022 actions have paralysed the council |
The fundamental difference: Antarctica was governable as a global commons because no one lived there and extraction was not yet economically viable when the treaty was signed. The Arctic's governance failure reflects competing national interests that pre-date any agreement.
Quick Check: Explain one reason why Antarctica is better managed than the Arctic.
Antarctica has the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), including the legally binding Madrid Protocol (1991) which bans all mineral extraction until at least 2048. This was agreed before Antarctic resource extraction was technically or economically feasible — a key reason all nations could agree, as no country was being asked to sacrifice actual economic interests yet. The Arctic, by contrast, has only the non-binding Arctic Council (established 1996), whose 8 member states have competing sovereign interests in the region's oil, gas, fishing, and shipping routes. Russia's active militarisation of the Arctic (from 2015 onwards) and its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which has effectively paralysed the Arctic Council, demonstrate that national interest overrides collective governance when real economic and strategic stakes are involved.