| Summary: | Within the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991 ('the Madrid Protocol'�) there are a number of key terms which are not adequately defined. This deliberate 'constructive ambiguity'� is useful in the process of reaching agreement between states with diverse cultural and political values but less helpful when it comes to implementing its terms. Within the context of the Madrid Protocol, two such undefined terms are 'wilderness'� and 'aesthetic values'� which must be taken into account and protected from adverse impacts. Across the different treaty party states there are differing levels of engagement with the matter of both 'wilderness'� and 'aesthetic values'� both domestically and in an Antarctic context. Looking at New Zealand, the United States of America and China's approaches to 'wilderness'� shows three different levels of interaction with the concept domestically and three different interpretations of the term within an Antarctic context. The same can be seen in other state's approaches, though it is beyond the scope of this paper to address this. In terms of 'aesthetic values'�, different methodologies for quantifying the visual worth of a landscape are employed by different states but with an emerging theme of public consultation. Both terms have not yet been actively engaged with on a wide scale within the Antarctic Treaty System, but certain themes can be ascertained across the approaches of the various states.
|
|---|