Freedom of Scientific Investigation, Article II of the Antarctic Treaty, and the Legal Limits of Spatial Protection Under the Protocol
| Wednesday, August 26, 2026 |
| 11:40 AM - 11:50 AM |
Overview
Dr Indi Hodgson-Johnston, UTAS
Speaker
Dr Indi Hodgson-johnston
Senior Lecturer In Marine And Antarctic Law And Policy
Institute For Marine And Antarctic Studies, University Of Tasmania
Freedom of Scientific Investigation, Article II of the Antarctic Treaty, and the Legal Limits of Spatial Protection Under the Protocol
Abstract Document
Freedom of scientific investigation sits at the heart of the Antarctic Treaty. Article II guarantees it; the Protocol on Environmental Protection, and Annex V, supply the tools that protect the environment in which that science is done. The two are usually treated as complementary.
The designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 179, in the Western Sør Rondane Mountains, shows that they can pull against each other. Belgium, as proponent, sought two prohibited zones at the Pingvinane Nunataks to keep pristine microbial habitats inviolate, held in reserve for molecular techniques not yet developed. One Member objected. A blanket prohibition on human presence, it argued, would impede or stop research and monitoring, and sat in legal tension with the freedom of scientific investigation, the review requirement, and the inspection regime of the Treaty. To reach consensus, the Committee for Environmental Protection downgraded the prohibited zones to restricted zones. Several Members recorded their regret.
This paper approaches the episode through a legal lens, examining treaty interpretation and Member positions. Article II protects the freedom to conduct science; Annex V later protects the conditions under which science is conducted. Where these meet, there is now some conflict. The presentation maps how these sections developed, the geopolitical and legal tensions, and asks what the Sør Rondane compromise reveals about Article II and Annex V.
The designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 179, in the Western Sør Rondane Mountains, shows that they can pull against each other. Belgium, as proponent, sought two prohibited zones at the Pingvinane Nunataks to keep pristine microbial habitats inviolate, held in reserve for molecular techniques not yet developed. One Member objected. A blanket prohibition on human presence, it argued, would impede or stop research and monitoring, and sat in legal tension with the freedom of scientific investigation, the review requirement, and the inspection regime of the Treaty. To reach consensus, the Committee for Environmental Protection downgraded the prohibited zones to restricted zones. Several Members recorded their regret.
This paper approaches the episode through a legal lens, examining treaty interpretation and Member positions. Article II protects the freedom to conduct science; Annex V later protects the conditions under which science is conducted. Where these meet, there is now some conflict. The presentation maps how these sections developed, the geopolitical and legal tensions, and asks what the Sør Rondane compromise reveals about Article II and Annex V.
Biography
Indi is a Senior Lecturer in Marine and Antarctic Law and Policy at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania.
Indi is also Chief Rapporteur at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, is Senior Deputy Chair of the Tasmanian Polar Network, and sits on the boards of the Antarctic Science Foundation and Australian Wooden Boat Festival as a non-executive director.
Indi was previously had roles at the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science and Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System. She has held academic, government, and legal advisory roles. She holds degrees in law, policy, and Antarctic studies, a PhD in law, and is a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
