Abstract | Keywords | Export | Availability | Bookmark

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This dissertation deals with a problem that constitutes a big challenge for the Antarctica Treaty System (ATS): the conflict between the increasing biological prospecting activities in Antarctica and the perception of the Antarctic region as being a Global Common, protected from exploitative activities and dedicated to scientific research. The issue of bioprospecting in Antarctica has been on the agenda of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting since 1999. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry have shown an increasing interest in the substances on Antarctica, which consequently has led to an increase in the number of patents that include Antarctic biological material. However, a specific legal regime regulating Antarctic bioprospecting does not exist. The ATS, which has the protection of Antarctica as a Global Common as its primary goal, does not expressly regulate bioprospecting activities either. However, while the ATS provisions can be used as guidelines for bioprospecting activities carried out on Antarctica, it is not sufficient, for it contains several lacunae regarding this issue. Therefore, a solution has been sought in three international frameworks beyond the ATS that are relevant for bioprospecting: The Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the TRIPS-Agreement. However, while these international regimes can serve as guidelines for a future regulatory framework regarding Antarctic bioprospecting, none of these seem to provide an effective regulation for Antarctic bioprospecting. Consequently, it is clear that there is a stringent need for a future regulatory framework on Antarctic bioprospecting that will manage to fill in the existing lacunae concerning this activity. By setting out a clear gap analysis of the ATS regarding biological prospecting and by analysing the possible gap-filling solutions found in several relevant international regimes beyond the ATS, it contributes to the development of a good structure within the new regulation. All expectations concerning the issue of bioprospecting in Antarctica lie in the hands of the Antarctic Treaty Parties. Let us hope that these parties will develop a clear, concise and comprehensive legal framework that balances the integrity of the Global Commons and the commercial potential of Antarctic material in a proper way.