{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018867924528301886, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016648168701442843, 'mean_word_length': 5.195876288659794, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The United Nations and Antarctica, 1992: still searching for that elusive convergence of view

ABSTRACT The tenth successive annual UN session on the ‘Question of Antarctica’ took place at the close of 1992. The UN First Committee considered the topic during the week following the close of the Seventeenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting held at Venice. The passage of yet another resolution critical of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) suggested that little had changed as compared to previous sessions. However, during 1992, UN reports and discussions displayed evidence of a growing acknowledgement of a range of ‘positive’ developments on the part of the ATS, most notably the benefits accruing from the Protocol on Environmental Protection's designation of Antarctica as ‘a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science’ in which mining is prohibited. Significantly, both critics and the German spokesman for the Antarctic Treaty parties (ATPs) — individual ATPs still refused to participate in either the UN discussions or vote because of their belief that the UN has no meaningful role to play in the affairs of a region subject to a valid international legal regime—expressed satisfaction with the concerted approach towards Antarctica embodied in Agenda 21 of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which met at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. As a result, ATPs agreed to ensure that research products were freely available to the international community. In December 1992 the adoption of UN resolution A47/57 reaffirmed the continuing divide between ATPs and other members of the international community regarding the management of Antarctica, even if the UNCED–type formula offers one route back to consensus when the UN takes up the topic again at the close of 1993.