The purpose of this paper is to explore possible legal issues concerning the Dronning Maud Land Air Network (DROMLAN) under the Antarctic Treaty system. By examining the recent discussion concerning DROMLAN within the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and relevant State practice, this paper argues that States parties have difficulty in fully complying with the obligations of advanced notice under Article VII (5) of the Antarctic Treaty and Environmental Impact Assessment under Article VIII (2) of the Madrid Protocol for DROMLAN’s operation. Finally, this paper suggests that good communication among relevant States parties and private actors is important for enhancing compliance with these obligations.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 540 | 185 | 32 |
Full Text Views | 39 | 8 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 72 | 17 | 1 |
The purpose of this paper is to explore possible legal issues concerning the Dronning Maud Land Air Network (DROMLAN) under the Antarctic Treaty system. By examining the recent discussion concerning DROMLAN within the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and relevant State practice, this paper argues that States parties have difficulty in fully complying with the obligations of advanced notice under Article VII (5) of the Antarctic Treaty and Environmental Impact Assessment under Article VIII (2) of the Madrid Protocol for DROMLAN’s operation. Finally, this paper suggests that good communication among relevant States parties and private actors is important for enhancing compliance with these obligations.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 540 | 185 | 32 |
Full Text Views | 39 | 8 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 72 | 17 | 1 |