On Tuesday, March 4th, the Ocean Diplomacy Working Group (ODWG), the Rethinking Diplomacy Program’s Space Diplomacy Lab (SDL) and the Duke Marine Lab welcomed Evan Bloom, polar expert, lawyer, former senior diplomat, and Global Fellow at the Wilson Center’s Polar Institute for a discussion examining how the Antarctic Treaty System might inform governance frameworks for humanity’s next frontier: the Moon.
During his visit, Mr. Bloom met with students and faculty studying global treaties from the Law of the Sea Treaty, Plastics Treaty, and the High Seas Treaty to the Outer Space Treaty and the Artemis Accords. A group of students, working on a Bass Connections project entitled, The Future of Space Settlements: Lessons from History, met with Bloom to discuss lessons learned from his experience representing the U.S. during diplomatic negotiations and international research station inspections in the Antarctic.
Following these meetings, a public lecture and discussion, entitled “From the Antarctic to the Moon: Global Governance in Extraterritorial Areas” took place at the Sanford School of Public Policy, and was attended by around 80 students and faculty from across campus including the Sanford School of Public Policy, History, the Nicholas School of the Environment, the Duke Marine Lab, Law, Physics, and Cosmology among others.
The Antarctic Treaty Model: A Successful Treaty with Growing Challenges
Kicking off the discussion, Ally Kristan explained that the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959 during the Cold War, has successfully transformed a potentially contentious continent into a demilitarized zone dedicated to peace and scientific research. With 29 nations now holding voting rights, the treaty represents one of history’s most successful international agreements. It effectively placed territorial claims in abeyance, banned military activities, and eventually prohibited mining through the Protocol on Environmental Protection.
However, Evan Bloom explained during his presentation that this system now faces mounting pressures. Rising geopolitical tensions, particularly between a “Russia-China bloc” and Western nations, have strained the consensus-based decision-making process. The expansion of Chinese presence—with five stations and a sixth announced—alongside strategically positioned Russian facilities signals growing competition through territorial presence rather than military power.
Other challenges include surging tourism (exceeding 100,000 annual visitors post-pandemic) and research employing dual-use technologies that can be used for peaceful, civilian and scientific purposes, but also can be used for intelligence gathering operations. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to reach consensus on expanding marine protected areas despite international commitments to ocean conservation. For example, the Antarctic krill, a type of fish prized for its use in fish oil supplements and for feed in aquaculture, is a very valuable commodity. As the Antarctic krill fishing industry expands, there are growing concerns about the potential impacts on krill populations and the broader Antarctic ecosystem, including negative impacts on krill predators like penguins, seals, and whales through competition and by-catch (when non-target animals are caught in fishing nets).
“The more we study the Antarctic Treaty, the better.”
-Dr. Giovanni Zanalda
In spite of these challenges, the Antarctic Treaty remains an effective instrument of international governance and collaboration in an area where the pressure of competing interests and geopolitical rivalries could lead to military conflict.
“The Antarctic Treaty is considered one of the most successful international treaties,” noted Dr. Giovanni Zanalda, highlighting its success in coordinating and monitoring international activities on a valuable, but contested continent.
The Moon: A New Frontier Requiring Governance
But what, you may ask, does the global governance in the Antarctic have to do with governing human activities on the Moon?
The remoteness of space and its harsh environments plus the advanced technology required to travel and sustain life in extreme conditions have, until recently, been a major barrier to space exploration for all but the most advanced national space programs.
Now, the sharp reduction in launch costs and rapid commercialization of space aare making space more accessible. More countries are engaged in space programs and interested to be part of the next phase of humanity’s exploration of space. Add the burgeoning commercial space industry to the mix, and the issue of governance becomes even more urgent. Calls for flexible and durable agreements similar to those developed to govern human research stations in the Arctic and Antarctic are growing louder.
The Arctic and Antarctic are sites of decades of sustained human activity and may be instructive for those working on issues related to activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
As humanity prepares to return to the Moon, the legal landscape remains largely defined by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies. However, this decades-old agreement lacks updates despite rapid technological advancement and growing commercial interest.
While the Outer Space Treaty prevents ownership of lunar territory, recent national space laws from the US (2015), Luxembourg (2017), UAE (2019), and Japan (2021) have provisions that allow individuals to claim ownership of resources extracted from celestial bodies. “The south pole of the moon is going to be a very contentious area,” explained Space Diplomacy Lab Graduate Fellow Harrison Schreiber, noting NASA’s Firefly recent probe landing on the south side of the Moon, and more missions expected imminently.
Two Models Emerging in Space Governance
According to Schreiber, there are currently two competing coalitions developing norms for lunar activities. The US-led Artemis Accords, first signed by the U.S. and seven other countries in 2020, is a non-binding international pact that aims to advance cooperative, transparent, and peaceful space exploration. Meanwhile, China and Russia have established a competing alliance addressing similar issues—including resource extraction, safety zones, and scientific cooperation, and have set a goal of establishing an International Lunar Research Station on the Moon by 2030. Nearly a dozen countries have signed on.
Bloom, drawing on insights from his more than 20 years of experience as a member of multinational inspections teams and governance bodies in the Antarctic, emphasized a need for diplomatic engagement and consensus building. “Treaty regimes work best if the major players are more or less aligned,” he said. He pointed to the successful mining ban in Antarctica as evidence that international consensus is possible when key stakeholders find common ground.
Lessons for Global Governance in Extraterritorial Areas
Looking forward, adapting to new realities, and reducing competitive pressure in Antarctica will require sustained, creative diplomacy if the Antarctic Treaty is to continue to govern human activities there. Meanwhile, establishing guidelines and norms for the Moon, before extensive lunar settlement begins, is crucial, with scientific cooperation potentially serving as a foundation for broader agreements—just as it did in Antarctica over sixty years ago.
As Dr. Zanalda noted, “The more we study the Antarctic Treaty, the better.”
This event was organized by the Rethinking Diplomacy Program’s Space Diplomacy Lab, Ocean Diplomacy Working Group, Duke Marine Lab (Nicholas School of the Environment), with the support of the Sanford School of Public Policy, the Program in American Grand Strategy, and the John Hope Franklin Center.
