The Madrid Protocol functions as a long-term spatial ordering device. This environmental agreement protects Antarctic space in a hierarchical manner while simultaneously defining the conditions for its governance and management. In doing so, it reveals a blurred boundary between environmental conservation and geopolitical reordering.
At the same time, this environmental ordering does not neutralize the accumulation of state capacities. The expansion, often framed under technical or scientific justification, of research, logistical, and technological infrastructure remains largely unrestricted, thereby configuring a form of functional occupation of space.
In Antarctica, territorialization is not expressed through formal legal appropriation, but through the progressive consolidation of capabilities that structure who is able to operate, with what intensity, and with what degree of autonomy, in other words, through the exercise of spatial power.
Within the framework of the Antarctic Treaty System, the logic that sustains it is long-term in nature: it is, in essence, an intergenerational form of planning. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty functions as a tool that organizes the Antarctic space with the future in mind, establishing environmental limits and priorities that transcend governments in office. In this scenario, investment acquires a strategic meaning: without investment there is no sustained presence, and without sustained presence the capacity to exert influence weakens.
Observing the geographical context of the Southern Cone, it could be argued that those countries closest to the Antarctic continent have a natural capacity to maintain a sustained presence, and it is not difficult to deduce that their investment efforts may be comparatively lower due to their logistical and geographic condition.
However, this balance also depends on the broader global context. If the international system, marked by rivalries and shifts in the distribution of power, becomes more competitive, it could alter the cooperative dynamic that characterizes Antarctica and place strain on its unique governance model.
Beyond all of the above, it is also necessary to recognize that expansion has been a constant throughout human history. Societies have advanced, explored, and occupied new spaces as part of their dynamics of development and survival. In this sense, it would not be naïve to consider that Antarctica, the last bastion, may cease to be an exceptional space in international politics.
Author: Pamela da Costa
Since 2017, I have been working at the Uruguayan Antarctic Institute. In this context, I have participated in official missions with RCTA-CPA, RAPAL, and Antarctica. I have academic training in International Relations, complemented by specialized studies in scientific diplomacy, polar studies, climate change, foreign policy, and international security, along with an internship at the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat in 2024, which has allowed me to develop specific technical knowledge about the functioning of the System, its negotiation processes, and its international cooperation dynamics.
Deeply engaged with Antarctic issues, I seek to use this topic as a springboard for innovation, promoting actions that generate new research questions.