南极条约体系合法化:从富国俱乐部到全球生态民主?

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Australian Journal of International Affairs Pub Date : 2022-03-27 DOI:10.1080/10357718.2022.2056876
Patrick Flamm
{"title":"南极条约体系合法化:从富国俱乐部到全球生态民主?","authors":"Patrick Flamm","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2022.2056876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Like other international institutions, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) relies on the goodwill and self-binding commitment of its members. Legitimacy, understood as the belief in the ‘rightfulness’ of a governing arrangement by its stakeholders, lies at the heart of the ATS’ success as a multilateral institution. Global warming and geopolitical power shifts are poised to challenge established forms of Antarctic legitimacy and effectiveness, with external calls for Antarctic democratisation and reform increasing. Using the concepts of input, output, and throughput legitimacy, this paper explores how the ATS has been legitimated as the only authoritative decision-making context for Antarctic matters, internally amongst Treaty Partners as well as externally towards the rest of the international community. It argues that the increase of input legitimacy through the inclusion of more consultative parties led to a perceived lack of output legitimacy for some especially environmental critics which illustrates the importance but also the limits of maintaining consensus about throughput legitimacy: the agreed upon processes and rules of decision-making. Finally, the analysis problematises the inhibiting centrality of nation states and the logic of sovereignty during times of global ecological and geopolitical change and asks how an ambitiously democratic future of Antarctic governance in the Anthropocene might look like.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"76 1","pages":"266 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legitimating the Antarctic Treaty System: from rich nations club to planetary ecological democracy?\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Flamm\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10357718.2022.2056876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Like other international institutions, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) relies on the goodwill and self-binding commitment of its members. Legitimacy, understood as the belief in the ‘rightfulness’ of a governing arrangement by its stakeholders, lies at the heart of the ATS’ success as a multilateral institution. Global warming and geopolitical power shifts are poised to challenge established forms of Antarctic legitimacy and effectiveness, with external calls for Antarctic democratisation and reform increasing. Using the concepts of input, output, and throughput legitimacy, this paper explores how the ATS has been legitimated as the only authoritative decision-making context for Antarctic matters, internally amongst Treaty Partners as well as externally towards the rest of the international community. It argues that the increase of input legitimacy through the inclusion of more consultative parties led to a perceived lack of output legitimacy for some especially environmental critics which illustrates the importance but also the limits of maintaining consensus about throughput legitimacy: the agreed upon processes and rules of decision-making. Finally, the analysis problematises the inhibiting centrality of nation states and the logic of sovereignty during times of global ecological and geopolitical change and asks how an ambitiously democratic future of Antarctic governance in the Anthropocene might look like.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of International Affairs\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"266 - 285\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of International Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2022.2056876\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2022.2056876","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

与其他国际机构一样,南极条约体系(ATS)依赖于成员国的善意和自我约束承诺。合法性,被理解为利益相关者对治理安排的“正当性”的信念,是ATS作为一个多边机构成功的核心。随着外部对南极民主化和改革的呼声越来越高,全球变暖和地缘政治力量的转移将挑战南极现有的合法性和有效性。使用输入、输出和吞吐量合法性的概念,本文探讨了ATS如何被合法化为南极事务的唯一权威决策环境,在条约伙伴内部以及外部对国际社会的其他部分。它认为,通过纳入更多协商方来增加投入合法性,导致一些特别是环境批评者认为缺乏产出合法性,这说明了保持关于产量合法性的共识的重要性,但也有局限性:商定的决策过程和规则。最后,分析提出了在全球生态和地缘政治变化时期抑制民族国家中心地位和主权逻辑的问题,并提出了在人类世中南极治理的雄心勃勃的民主未来可能是什么样子的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Legitimating the Antarctic Treaty System: from rich nations club to planetary ecological democracy?
ABSTRACT Like other international institutions, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) relies on the goodwill and self-binding commitment of its members. Legitimacy, understood as the belief in the ‘rightfulness’ of a governing arrangement by its stakeholders, lies at the heart of the ATS’ success as a multilateral institution. Global warming and geopolitical power shifts are poised to challenge established forms of Antarctic legitimacy and effectiveness, with external calls for Antarctic democratisation and reform increasing. Using the concepts of input, output, and throughput legitimacy, this paper explores how the ATS has been legitimated as the only authoritative decision-making context for Antarctic matters, internally amongst Treaty Partners as well as externally towards the rest of the international community. It argues that the increase of input legitimacy through the inclusion of more consultative parties led to a perceived lack of output legitimacy for some especially environmental critics which illustrates the importance but also the limits of maintaining consensus about throughput legitimacy: the agreed upon processes and rules of decision-making. Finally, the analysis problematises the inhibiting centrality of nation states and the logic of sovereignty during times of global ecological and geopolitical change and asks how an ambitiously democratic future of Antarctic governance in the Anthropocene might look like.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: AJIA is the journal of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. The Institute was established in 1933 as an independent and non-political body and its purpose is to stimulate interest in and understanding of international affairs among its members and the general public. The aim of the Australian Journal of International Affairs is to publish high quality scholarly research on international political, social, economic and legal issues, especially (but not exclusively) within the Asia-Pacific region. The journal publishes research articles, refereed review essays and commentary and provocation pieces. ''Articles'' are traditional scholarly articles. ‘Review essays’ use newly published books as the basis to thematically examine current events in International Relations. The journal also publishes commentaries and provocations which are high quality and engaging pieces of commentary, opinion and provocation in a variety of styles. The Australian Journal of International Affairs aims to analyse international issues for an Australian readership and to present Australian perspectives to readers in other countries. While seeking to stimulate interest in and understanding of international affairs, the journal does not seek to promote any particular policies or approaches. All suitable manuscripts submitted are sent to two referees in a full ''double blind'' refereeing process.
期刊最新文献
Contextualizing Bicultural Competence Across Youths' Adaptation From High School to College: Prospective Associations With Mental Health and Substance Use. Australia and the US nuclear umbrella: from deterrence taker to deterrence maker Middle-power behaviours: Australia’s status-quoist/Lockean and Indonesia’s reformist/Kantian approaches to crises of legitimacy in the Indo-Pacific Introduction to the special section: reflecting on Allan Gyngell’s contributions to Australian foreign affairs practice, scholarship, and education Democracy, firms, and cyber punishment: what cyberspace challenge do democracies face from the private sector?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1