The Quiet Power of Nature in the Geopolitical Game
Nature does not concern itself with geopolitics or science… until either determines our collective fate.
The international system, marked by strategic rivalries and shifting configurations of global power, could become the disruptive variable that alters the cooperative balance of the Antarctic Treaty System and erodes the architecture of its co-governance.
Although nature remains indifferent to geopolitics and science, environmental protection and Antarctic geopolitics increasingly converge within a landscape of blurred boundaries.
This article examines three variables that underpin this hypothesis: geography as a structural asset of power; investment and exploration as prospective tools; and the Madrid Protocol as a long-term spatial ordering mechanism.
Geography: The Southern Cone as a Natural Platform
The southernmost tip of South America represents the closest inhabited point to the Antarctic continent, separated only by the Sea of Straits (Drake Passage, approximately 500 nautical miles between Cape Horn and Elephant Island). This proximity positions the Southern Cone as a structural and commercial intermediary between the white continent and Antarctic co-governance.
Within this region, legal, logistical, and environmental dimensions intersect, generating an increasingly complex scenario for states seeking to strengthen their Antarctic engagement.
Geographical potential must therefore be analyzed prospectively, that is, by assessing the value of Antarctic space with a future-oriented lens, particularly in a context where power remains deferred rather than territorially consolidated.
Under this perspective, the geography of the Southern Cone acquires a structural dimension, as it does not operate as a static fact but rather as a structuring variable of future power. In this context, territorial proximity could become a first-order strategic asset in the event of a hypothetical future redefinition of the Antarctic regime.
In a scenario where the balances within the Antarctic Treaty System were to shift, whether through increased pressure on Antarctic resources or intensified competition among extra-regional powers, geographical potential would likely translate into enhanced legitimacy and presence, as well as greater capacity for control and legal argumentation.
Investment constitutes a prospective instrument: without investment there is no sustained presence. And without presence, influence gradually weakens.
Maintaining a permanent presence, logistical autonomy, operational centrality, technical leadership, and diplomatic capital would enable a state not only to contribute to the organization of the System, but indirectly to its steering. If we examine the “capacity to influence,” several interrelated levels can be identified.
First: a discursive-legal level, which encompasses national narratives, historical presence, and claims of belonging.
Second: an epistemological level, where the production of knowledge legitimizes influence: generating scientific data, leading technical networks, and providing evidence grants authority in decision-making processes.
Third: an operational level, where serving as a logistical platform reduces dependence and enhances centrality.
Reaching a systemic level, that is, shaping or impacting the institutional architecture itself, requires more than participation; it requires sustained investment. Investment not only generates capabilities, but also deepens structural asymmetries within the System, as not all actors possess the same capacity to accumulate presence, infrastructure, and influence.
In this sense, infrastructure is not neutral; it communicates geopolitical intentions. Research stations, icebreakers, docks, airports, private national companies, and other logistical assets can be interpreted as a silent accumulation of capacity and indicators of sovereignty.
Investment is therefore crucial in Antarctica: Consultative Parties that have invested consistently and strategically will hold a comparative advantage in the face of future change.
Annex: References
Antarctic Treaty Secretariat. (1991). Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol).
- Nuñez, C/R ( R) Daniel (2025). Vision Geopolitica en ANtartida desde el Cono Sur Americano.
K. Doods (1997). . Geopolitics in Antarctica
Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.
- Declaration of generative AI
Author: Pamela da Costa
Since 2017, I have been working at the Uruguayan Antarctic Institute. In this context, I have participated in official missions with RCTA-CPA, RAPAL, and Antarctica. I have academic training in International Relations, complemented by specialized studies in scientific diplomacy, polar studies, climate change, foreign policy, and international security, along with an internship at the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat in 2024, which has allowed me to develop specific technical knowledge about the functioning of the System, its negotiation processes, and its international cooperation dynamics.
Deeply engaged with Antarctic issues, I seek to use this topic as a springboard for innovation, promoting actions that generate new research questions.
