- Antarctica,
- national interests,
- values,
- experts’ judgments method
Abstract
At present the concept of national interests in Antarctic is not defined in any directive legislative act. Pursuant to this, the research is based on the assumption, that National interests of countries – Parties to the Antarctic Treaty (including Ukraine) lie in guaranteeing of universal values associated with Antarctica, which were systematized by the SCAR Social Science Action Group (SSAG) into the following six categories of multiple values: environmental, societal, economic, scientific, aesthetic, and political (with relevant subcategories in each value). Though the mentioned values have qualitative nature, their ranking and interpretation of received results is possible by means of mathematical apparatus. This study is devoted to determine the quantitative characteristics of importance of each Antarctic value using the judgement method that was effectually applied in politics by Prof. Thomas L. Saaty in the second half of XX century. The approach consists of three stages: 1) preparing the matrix with the list of the studied values, 2) filling the matrix elements by the experts’ judgements on the successive pairwise comparison of the values importance in accordance with ranks from 0 to 9, in compliance with the matrix consistency property (the matrix is consistent if aii =1 and aji =1/aij), and 3) task solution on the prepared matrix eigenvalues that give, after normalization, the comparative quantitative evaluations of the importance of each value. In the process of evaluation of national interests the following normative legal documents were used: State Special-Purpose Research Program in Antarctica for 2011-2020; decrees of the President; acts of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; and work and information papers of Ukraine presented for annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings starting from 2000. The following results of national interests’ expert judgment were obtained in the order of importance: scientific – 47,2%; political – 18,1%; economic – 15,2%; environmental – 10,5%; societal – 6,4%; aesthetic – 2,6%. The proposed method can be used for analysis of national interests of other states – Parties to the Antarctic Treaty. The received results serve as analytical basis for political decision-making by executive authorities concerning activity of Ukraine in Antarctica for near-term outlook and beyond, and also for substantiation of political position of Ukraine in appropriate bodies within the Antarctic Treaty System.
References
- Delegation of Ukraine. (2009). Vozmozhnosti shirokomasshtabnogo upravleniya v rajone stancii Akademik Vernadskij [Possibilities for large-scale management in the region of the Akademik Vernadsky Station]. Informational document IP-062, XІІ Meeting of the Committee for environmental protection (06–10 April 2009, Baltimor, USA).
- Kuzko, O.V., Savchenko, V.V., & Fedchuk, A.P. (2013). Dosvid doslidzhennia kilkisnykh kharakterystyk natsionalnykh interesiv Ukrainy v Antarktytsi [The experience of studying quantitative characteristics of Ukraine’s national interests in Antarctica]. Tezy VI Mizhnarodnoi antarktychnoi konferentsii (15–17 May 2013, Kyiv). Kyiv, Foliant. pp. 44-45.
- Delegation of Ukraine. (2012). Progress Ukrainy` v sozdanii shirokomasshtabnoj sistemy` upravleniya v rajone stancii Akademik Vernadskij [Ukraine’s progress in creating a large-scale management system in the region of the Akademik Vernadsky station]. Informational document IP-068, XV Meeting of the Committee for environmental protection (11–15 June , 2012, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia): a report.
- Fedchuk, A. (2011-2012). Evoliutsiia Systemy Dohovoru pro Antarktyku: struktura i dynamika aktiv, ukhvalenykh za 1961–2011 rr. [The evolution of the Antarctic Treaty System: structure and dynamics of the Acts of 1961-2011]. Ukrainian Antarctic Journal, 10/11, 406–427.
- Fedchuk, A. (2010). Stanovlennia ukrainotsentrychnoho pidkhodu u kompleksno-heohrafichnykh doslidzhenniakh Antarktyky [The establishment of the Ukraine-centric approach in comprehensive geographical research of Antarctica]. Heohrafiia ta turyzm: Nauk. Zb. Kyiv, Alterpres, Iss. 5, 159–165.
- Delegation of Ukraine (2005). Draft proposal for discussion to Antarctic Protected Areas System -Antarctic Specially Managed Area No XX “Petermann Island, Wilhelm Archipelago, Antarctic Peninsula”. Informational Paper IP-098, VIII Meeting of the Committee on Environmental Protection (06–10 June 2005,Stockholm, Sweden).
- Kuzko, O., Leonov, M., & Fedchuk, A. (2012). The Ranking of Multiple Values in Antarctica. Proceedings of the International Polar Year Conference “From Knowledge to Action” (22–27 April 2012, Montreal, Canada).
- Kuzko, O., Leonov, M., Fedchuk, A., & Savchenko, V. (2012). Quantitative Characteristics of Values in Antarctica and Threats for Antarctica . Proceedings of the XXXII-SCAR Open Science Conference “Antarctic Science and Policy Advice in a Changing World” (July 13–25, 2012, Portland, USA). Portland, State University. –Abstract No 46.
- Kuzko, О., Savchenko, V., & Fedchuk, А. (2013). Application of Hierarchy Research Method for Assessment of National Interests in Antarctica. Book of Abstracts of the SCAR Workshop "Past, present and future of human connections to the Antarctic" (1–5 July 2013, Cambridge, UK). Cambridge, British Antarctic Survey. –p. 16.
- Saaty, T., & Vargas, L. (1994). Decision Making in Economic, Social and Technological Environments with the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
- Saaty, T. (1968). Mathematical models of arms control and disarmament: application of mathematical structures in politics. Wiley.
- The first site of the Marine Protected Area network in the Akademik Vernadsky Station region: Argentine Islands, Skua Creek / (Delegation of Ukraine); Scientific Committee of CCAMLR, Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management. SC-CCAMLR/WG-EMM-12/25 (Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2012): report. –2012. –Available at http:www.ccamlr.org/en/wg-emm-12/25.