International regime formation and leadership : the origins of the Antarctic treaty

This study assesses the role of political leadership in international regime formation. It is argued that political leadership is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the success of efforts to reach agreement through processes of institutional bargaining that dominate attempts to form regimes in international society. The theoretical work of Oran Yotmg has drawn attention to the issue of leadership in the formation of international regimes. This study has sought to test ideas, derived from his work, in the context of the international regime regulating human activities in Antarctica which was established under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. Based largely on the analysis of recently released government archival material, this case study contrasts the failed attempt to form an Antarctic regime in the late 1940s and early 1950s with the success of efforts in the late 1950s. Indeed, the failure of the efforts undertaken in the earlier period to solve what was known as the Antarctic Problem provides a near experimental condition (or relevant counterfactual) to compare with the success of the efforts which culminated in the signing and ratification of the 1959 Treaty. This thesis confirms Young's hypothesis that political leadership is a multidimensional phenomenon which plays a critical role in regime formation. While leadership was present in both attempts to form an Antarctic regime, the emergence of intellectual leadership in the late 1940s was not complemented by structural or significant entrepreneurial leadership to overcome or circumvent prenegotiation problems. In the later, successful attempt, the ideas generated and proposed through intellectual leadership in the earlier period were complemented with entrepreneurial leadership and structural leadership that were crucial in overcoming extant prenegotiation and other institutional bargaining problems. Thus, the case study suggests that entrepreneurial, structural and intellectual forms of leadership are necessary for regime formation to occur.