Opening speech given at the 2nd Kobe PCRC / KOPRI Antarctic Governance Workshop, Kobe, Japan, 18.1.2025.
Ville Kari
Please let me begin by thanking the PCRC and KOPRI for the invitation, for the hospitality, and for this wonderful opportunity to discuss the key policy challenges in Antarctica. Thanks in particular to Professor Shibata and Dr Shin, and to our distinguished speaker Dr Nakamura for being here today to present the keynote address.
Please also allow me to congratulate professor Takamura for the success of her Study Group. I am very encouraged by the news. I hope professor Takamura will take my best of regards to her colleagues at the Kento Kai.
I also wish to highlight the matter of Environmental Liability in Antarctica, which was the subject of our workshop here in Kobe last year, and which I am pleased to see continued here today.
The issue with Environmental Liability is this: Who should be legally responsible for addressing and remedying an environmental emergency, such as an oil spill, in the Antarctic – and how?
The answer under current international law is unclear, because most international instruments where States agree about liability only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of States. Antarctica needs an international legal instrument to define and to enforce environmental liability.
The good news is that a binding legal instrument already exists. It is Annex VI to the Environment Protocol, adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Stockholm in 2005. Therefore Consultative Parties have already agreed on environmental liability twenty years ago.
But Annex VI will enter into force only when all those States that made it – the 28 Consultative Parties in 2005 – implement it in their national legislations and submit an instrument of acceptance to the depositary.
The implementation procedure is one of maximum flexibility, where each Party can adopt its own suitable domestic legal instruments.
Still, there has been a very long delay. At present, 19 of the necessary Parties have implemented the Measure, with 9 remaining.
Remedying this situation is a common concern for the entire Antarctic legal community, first and foremost because of the importance of environmental protection, but also to maintain the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System in the eyes of the world.
It is in this juncture that we – everyone in this room – come in. I believe that an open and constructive dialogue between lawyers, academics and professionals in public institutions can have significant impact in facilitating the implementation of Annex VI.
There has been no significant resistance to Annex VI from Parties since it was adopted. Instead, the challenge to countries seems to be more administrative. Liability in Antarctica is not a well known topic, and new to those who are meant to implement it domestically. I believe that by offering advice we can help the Parties make genuine progress.
I think the dialogue in Kobe should continue, and to continue to bring together the draters of the Annex, and the experts working on its domestic implementation.
The upcoming ATCMs hosted by Japan and Korea would offer an excellent opportunity to advance the adoption of Annex VI further. Progress among the Asian Consultative Parties would motivate the Antarctic community as a whole. Implementations have often occurred in groups, as governments inspire each other to take the next steps. I would be very pleased if the work of the PCRC and KOPRI could help the Parties demonstrate such leadership together.
That is all I had to say at this point; please let me thank you all for listening, and once again my thanks to PCRC and KOPRI for this opportunity.