The concept of global justice has increasingly evolved as a critical pillar in understanding and addressing issues that transcend national boundaries, reflecting the growing moral and legal consensus on the equitable treatment of all humans irrespective of nationality, race, or geography.[1]

Global justice focuses not only on relations between states but also emphasizes obligations towards individuals and communities across the world, thereby expanding the scope of international law and political theory[2]. This concept is also deeply influenced by critiques of how globalisation has impacted access to justice.

Prof. Upendra Baxi also, highlights that globalisation has led to a structural adjustment in judicial functioning.Traditionally centered on inter-state diplomacy and sovereignty.the international legal order has gradually incorporated notions of fairness, equity, and sustainability into its framework under the broader canopy of global justice.[3]

This evolution has brought particular attention to global commons, which include areas such as the high seas, outer space, the atmosphere, and Antarctica regions that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation[4]. These commons pose unique governance challenges due to their shared nature, ecological fragility, and the competing interests of multiple stakeholders[5].

Among these, Antarctica stands out as a pristine and ecologically sensitive region that has become a testing ground for the application of global justice in legal and environmental governance[6].The application of global justice in such global commons reflects an ethical obligation of humanity to protect shared resources for current and future generations[7].

This includes ensuring equitable participation in decision-making, sustainable usage of resources, and maintaining peace and cooperation among nations[8]. In the case of Antarctica, the governance system established under the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has embodied several of these ideals through its emphasis on scientific collaboration, environmental protection, and demilitarisation.[9]

This term paper explores how the principles of global justice have informed the legal governance of Antarctica, particularly focusing on environmental protection and the mechanisms of international cooperation[10]. The primary objective of this research is to analyze the legal structures currently in place for managing Antarctica's environment and to assess their alignment with the principles of justice, equity, and sustainability[11]. It also aims to evaluate the effectiveness of international cooperation in preserving the Antarctic ecosystem and to explore how the concept of global justice continues to influence global legal instruments in this context[12].

The research problem addressed herein centers on the tension between sovereign ambitions and the collective responsibility of the international community to manage and protect Antarctica as a global common[13]. This tension manifests in debates over resource exploitation, territorial claims, and the inclusion of emerging global actors in Antarctic governance[14]. Through a critical examination of treaties, protocols, and case studies, this paper seeks to understand the practical implications of applying global justice to international environmental law[15].

The methodology adopted for this paper involves qualitative legal analysis of primary sources such as the Antarctic Treaty (1959), Madrid Protocol (1991), and relevant United Nations instruments, along with academic literature and historical records pertaining to Antarctica's governance[16]. It further includes case studies and dispute analyses that reveal the functioning and limitations of the current legal system in dealing with contemporary challenges like climate change, bioprospecting, and strategic geopolitics[17].

Key findings of this research indicate that the Antarctic Treaty System has been largely successful in promoting peaceful use, preventing military activities, and fostering scientific collaboration but still faces significant hurdles in addressing resource competition, enforcing environmental norms, and ensuring inclusivity among non-signatory states[18]. The study also finds that global justice remains a necessary lens through which sustainable and equitable governance of Antarctica must be evaluated and reformed[19].

In conclusion, this term paper argues that the application of global justice to the governance of Antarctica not only strengthens legal protections for a fragile ecosystem but also sets a precedent for the just and sustainable management of all global commons. Continued cooperation, legal innovation, and a justice- orientated approach are indispensable in securing Antarctica's future and advancing the broader ideals of global justice in international law.[20]

The Concept Of Global Justice

Global justice, a pivotal facet of normative international relations theory, delves into the ethical responsibilities of affluent nations towards the impoverished, emphasising the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities on a global scale. Distinct from international justice, which centres on interstate relations, global justice prioritizes individuals, advocating for universal human rights and dignity[21].

Global justice holds that wealthy countries have a moral duty to ensure fair access to resources and opportunities for all people, focusing on individual rights and dignity rather than solely on relations between states.

In explaining the concept of global justice Guo et al. aptly observe:
Global justice extends the principles of justice from local and national settings to the level of all humanity, demanding that individuals everywhere be the foremost bearers of rights, and that issues like climate change and the global economy be addressed collectively through shared values and the creation of complementary public goods at national and international levels.[22]
John Rawls, in his seminal work A Theory of Justice, in-craved the introduced the difference principle, asserting that societal inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged[23]. Rawls's difference principle says it's okay for some people to be better off than others as long as those at the bottom are made better off, too.

Charles Beitz expanded upon Rawls's ideas, applying them to the global context and emphasising the role of international institutions in influencing global wealth distribution[24]. Beitz took the idea of Rawls  world-wide, arguing global bodies (like the IMF or WTO) should help in distribution of  wealth more fairly.

Thomas Pogge furthered this discourse by highlighting the moral obligations of the global affluent, attributing persistent poverty to unjust global institutional structures[25]. Pogge pointed out that the rules set by rich countries and powerful institutions actually keep poor countries poor, so wealthy nations have a moral duty to fix those unfair systems.

Three predominant approaches to global justice have emerged:

1. Cosmopolitanism: Rooted in Kantian philosophy, this perspective emphasizes individual rights over state sovereignty, advocating for global citizenship and the reform of international institutions to uphold universal justice^[26]. Cosmopolitanism holds that each person is a global citizen with rights that transcend national borders, and that international institutions must be reformed to protect those universal rights.
    
2. Communitarianism: This viewpoint underscores the primacy of political communities, suggesting that justice is inherently tied to collective practices and institutions, which are most effectively realized within sovereign states^[27]. Communitarianism holds that justice is grounded in the shared values, norms, and institutions of particular political communities, and is best achieved within the framework of sovereign states rather than through abstract universal principles.
    
3. Realism: Realists contend that the anarchic nature of international relations and the perpetual pursuit of power by states render the concept of global justice idealistic and unattainable^[28]. Realists believe that because there is no higher authority above states and each state always seeks more power, the idea of a fair, rules-based world order (global justice) is unrealistic and unachievable.

'India's historical engagement with globalization, from ancient trade routes like the Silk Road to contemporary economic reforms post-1991, underscores its longstanding interconnectedness with the world. [29] The liberalization era witnessed significant legal and constitutional transformations, with the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, playing a pivotal role in interpreting fundamental rights in the context of globalisation. [30] Landmark judgments expanded the scope of Articles 14, 19, and 21, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice amidst evolving global dynamic.

The Concept Of Global Justice And Its Application In Law In Global World

Global justice compels the global community to consider justice not merely as a state-centric concept but as a human-centric moral and legal imperative[31]. In a globalized world, the disparities between the rich and poor transcend national boundaries, necessitating mechanisms of redistribution, accountability, and shared responsibility among states and individuals alike.[32] Justice hisashi Owada, in his work some  reflection on justice in a globalizing world,observed

No one would disagree that justice is an essential prerequisite for the existence of human society qua society; it is in this sense that the ancient sage stated, 'Ubi societas, ibi jus.' Jus in this context means something much more than just 'the law' or 'the laws' in the technical sense. On the contrary, I submit, the term jus in its intrinsic sense denotes the concept of 'justice' and, as its incarnation, the concept of law rather than 'the law.'

An eminent authority on the problem of justice, John Rawls, in his majestic treatise on A Theory of Justice, put it this way: 'Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise, laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For that reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.[33]

The principles of fairness and equity, as laid down by John Rawls, become the foundation for understanding justice in the context of globalization and interdependence[34]. Charles Beitz's interpretation of Rawlsian theory extends the notion of justice beyond domestic borders, recognizing the interconnectedness of global institutions and their role in perpetuating or correcting inequalities[35].

Beitz's concept of a global basic structure argues that international financial and economic institutions play a decisive role in determining distributive justice on a worldwide scale[36].  He emphasized that justice should not be confined within national borders when transnational institutions influence outcomes that affect individuals globally.[37]
Thomas Pogge added a critical dimension by arguing that current global institutional arrangements are actively responsible for maintaining poverty and inequality[38]

According to Pogge, global actors especially multinational corporations and powerful states bear moral responsibility for the harms caused by these unjust structures[39].His work emphasized the negative duty of affluent nations not to harm the poor, which is violated when they uphold institutions that systematically disadvantage marginalized populations. The cosmopolitan school of global justice argues for reforming international institutions to reflect values of justice and moral equality for all individuals regardless of their nationality[40]. Cosmopolitans assert that justice demands the restructuring of global economic and legal systems to ensure equal opportunities and protect individual rights worldwide[41].

They envision a global legal system where individuals, rather than states, are the primary subjects of justice.[42]Communitarians, such as Michael Walzer and Thomas Nagel, critique this view, asserting that justice is inherently tied to shared meanings and institutions within political communities[43]. Nagel contends that the absence of a global sovereign authority renders the global application of justice infeasible, as justice presupposes coercive structures that can enforce redistributive obligations[44].

Despite these criticisms, global interconnectedness continues to push legal scholars and policymakers towards more inclusive frameworks for justice that transcend state borders[45].The realist approach, rooted in the works of thinkers like Hans Morgenthau, views international relations as inherently anarchic and dominated by power politics[46]. Realists believe that states act primarily in their self-interest, making the pursuit of global justice a utopian ideal rather than a practical goal[47]. Nonetheless, even within realist paradigms, notions of justice can inform diplomacy, humanitarian intervention, and international treaties when states perceive a long-term strategic benefit[48].

India's journey in globalization presents a case study of how domestic legal institutions engage with global justice norms. [49]Since the economic liberalization of 1991, India's legal system has undergone significant transformation to accommodate global trade, foreign investment, and international cooperation[50].Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have played an instrumental role in integrating global justice ideals through expansive interpretations of fundamental rights[51].

In cases such as Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Court adopted the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle from international environmental law, emphasizing sustainable development and intergenerational justice[52]. Similarly, in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, the Supreme Court underscored the state's obligation to ensure food security and social welfare, linking them with constitutional mandates under Articles 21 and 39(b)[53].

Moreover, Indian jurisprudence has increasingly recognized global challenges such as climate change, environmental degradation, and human trafficking as subjects requiring both national and international legal responses[54]. The judiciary has not hesitated to refer to international treaties, conventions, and customary international law to strengthen the interpretation of domestic legal provisions in a global context[55].

In the arena of environmental justice a core concern of global justice India has emerged as a key actor in multilateral forums advocating for equitable climate policies that consider historical emissions and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities[56].This principle, enshrined in the Rio Declaration and the Paris Agreement, reflects the idea that global justice must account for past injustices and current disparities in capabilities among nations.[57]

The legal discourse in India illustrates how domestic systems can evolve to reflect the normative demands of global justice, particularly in the fields of environmental regulation, public health, and human rights[58]. The Indian legal system, through public interest litigation (PIL), has opened avenues for marginalized groups to assert their rights, contributing to a more inclusive and equitable form of justice[59]. PILs have addressed issues ranging from bonded labor and undertrial prisoners to access to clean water and education, integrating global norms with local realities[60].

Thus, the application of global justice in law, especially in a diverse and developing country like India, demonstrates the feasibility and necessity of aligning national legal systems with transnational moral and legal principles. It also signifies the potential for legal frameworks to act as mediators between global ethics and local enforcement, ensuring justice is both universally recognized and locally contextualized.[61]

Correlation Between The Concept Of Global Justice And Its Application In Law In Global World To Enviro Legal Governance Of Global Common Antarctica

The concept of global justice fundamentally aligns with the legal governance of Antarctica as a global common due to the shared responsibility of nations toward protecting the Earth's last pristine continent for future generations and current global scientific inquiry[62].Antarctica, devoid of an indigenous human population and governed by international consensus, exemplifies the ideals of global justice namely collective stewardship, equitable participation, and preservation of shared natural resources[63].

The idea of treating Antarctica as a global commons reflects the moral obligation of all nations to protect a space that benefits humanity as a whole, consistent with cosmopolitan notions of justice that emphasize human beings over states[64].

From a historical perspective, the governance of Antarctica began evolving through a series of geopolitical and legal developments that recognized its unique environmental and strategic importance.[65]The signing of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 marked a significant milestone by establishing Antarctica as a demilitarized zone dedicated to peace and science. [66]
The Treaty, which came into force in 1961, enshrines principles of global cooperation, peaceful use, scientific freedom, and environmental protection core values of global justice.[67]

By freezing territorial claims and promoting transparency among nations, the Treaty fosters a regime of shared sovereignty where no single state exercises exclusive control.[68] The development of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), comprising the original Treaty, the Protocol on Environmental Protection (Madrid Protocol, 1991), and other agreements, further operationalizes these principles[69].

The Madrid Protocol prohibits all mineral resource activities (except scientific research), enshrining Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science[70]. This legal articulation directly resonates with environmental justice and intergenerational equity, emphasizing that current generations must act responsibly to ensure the preservation of Antarctica for future generations[71].

The correlation between global justice and Antarctica's governance is also visible in the decision-making structure of the ATS, where Consultative Parties those conducting substantial scientific research make decisions by consensus.[72]This model reinforces the ideal that influence in governance should be earned through contribution to global knowledge and public goods, not through power or wealth alone[73].Furthermore, Non-Consultative Parties are still invited to participate in discussions, reinforcing inclusion and the right to be heard a critical element of procedural justice.[74]

Legal scholarship often links Antarctica's governance with the common heritage of mankind doctrine, used in other domains such as outer space and the deep seabed. [75]This doctrine, articulated in Article 136 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), posits that certain areas should be managed for the benefit of all humanity, with particular attention to the interests of developing states[76]. Similarly, the governance of Antarctica reflects the ethical imperative of equitable access to scientific information and the benefits of global commons[77]. In modern geopolitical discourse, Antarctica serves as a case study for balancing environmental protection with scientific advancement, where law functions as the medium to achieve distributive and procedural justice globally[78].

The prohibition of commercial exploitation and military activity under the ATS reflects the realization that justice requires not only fair distribution of benefits but also limitations on harmful conduct that may endanger global interests[79]. It also addresses structural injustice by preventing powerful nations from unilaterally exploiting Antarctica's resources, thus aligning with Thomas Pogge's critique of global institutional arrangements that perpetuate inequality.[80]

The role of civilization and modernization in Antarctica's governance is evident through the emphasis on collaborative scientific research and technology sharing. The Committee for Environmental Protection under the ATS ensures that modern developments in science and environmental monitoring are shared globally, fostering an inclusive model of knowledge dissemination. This echoes global justice ideals by ensuring that advancements benefit all humanity, including future generations and countries with limited research capacity.

Moreover, the Madrid Protocol requires Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before any human activity in Antarctica, thus institutionalizing the precautionary principle within international law.  This reflects the jurisprudence of sustainable development and aligns with India's own environmental justice framework, as recognized by the Supreme Court in several landmark judgments.EIAs serve as legal mechanisms to ensure that human activities do not disproportionately harm the global ecosystem or future human interests, reinforcing the moral obligations emphasized by global justice theories.

The increasing interest of non-signatory states and private actors in Antarctica, particularly in light of climate change and resource scarcity, presents new challenges to the global justice framework.[81] These developments test the resilience of existing legal instruments and demand renewed international cooperation to maintain Antarctica as a shared, protected space.[82] Just as globalization requires responsive legal systems to address transboundary issues, the governance of Antarctica demands legal innovation to ensure continued equity and sustainability.[83]

Thus, the principles of global justice—including equity, participation, accountability, and sustainability are not only applicable but are foundational to the legal governance of Antarctica.[84] Its status as a global common makes it a practical and symbolic arena where the ideals of justice beyond borders are actively implemented through international treaties, legal norms, and cooperative governance structures.[85]

Enviro Legal Governance Of Global Common Antarctica

Antarctica, a vast and pristine continent largely covered in ice, is unique in its governance model due to its status as terra nullius land belonging to no one nation and its designation as a global common devoted to peace, science, and environmental protection.[86]  The governance of Antarctica, especially in the environmental context, has evolved under the international legal framework established by the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), which has emerged as a key example of multilateral environmental cooperation.[87]This governance framework is instrumental in ensuring the sustainability of Antarctica's fragile ecosystem, preventing militarization, and promoting scientific collaboration among nations[88].

The cornerstone of Antarctic legal governance is the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which came into force in 1961 with 12 original signatories. Today, it has over 50 parties, including India, and plays a pivotal role in maintaining Antarctica as a zone free from military activity and nuclear testing. [89]Article I of the Treaty prohibits military activity, while Article II ensures freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation.[90] Importantly, the Treaty sets aside all territorial sovereignty claims, effectively freezing them under Article IV to prevent geopolitical disputes over the continent.[91]

Environmental governance gained momentum with the adoption of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, also known as the Madrid Protocol, signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1998.[92] This Protocol designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science and lays down comprehensive rules for environmental protection.[93] Article 3 of the Protocol outlines the principles of environmental protection, including the commitment to limit human impact, preserve biological diversity, and maintain wilderness values.[94]

The Madrid Protocol imposes a strict prohibition on mineral resource activities (except for scientific purposes) under Article 7, which reinforces Antarctica's protected status and affirms the commitment of the international community to long-term conservation.[95] Further, it mandates Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for all activities that may have more than a minor or transitory impact on the environment, institutionalizing the precautionary principle in the governance of global commons.[96]

The Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), established under the Protocol, plays a crucial advisory role to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), reviewing environmental impact assessments, management plans, and providing recommendations for the conservation of Antarctica's biodiversity.[97] These mechanisms exemplify procedural justice, ensuring transparency, participation, and accountability in decision-making concerning environmental governance.[98]

India has also contributed to the legal and environmental governance of Antarctica by ratifying the Antarctic Treaty in 1983 and establishing its scientific research stations Dakshin Gangotri (1983), Maitri (1988), and Bharati (2012) which function under the environmental norms of the ATS and Madrid Protocol.[99] India's domestic environmental policies, shaped by constitutional mandates under Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution, align with the international legal obligations to protect Antarctica's environment.[100]

Furthermore, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), signed in 1980, is an integral part of the ATS. It addresses marine ecosystem protection in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, adopting the ecosystem-based management approach to conserve fish stocks, prevent illegal fishing, and regulate human activities that impact the marine ecosystem.[101] CCAMLR uses scientific data to set sustainable fishing quotas and monitor environmental changes due to climate change and human presence.[102]

In addition to these treaties, international cooperation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement indirectly supports Antarctic governance by focusing on mitigating global temperature rise and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, both of which have direct effects on Antarctic ice sheets and global sea levels.[103]

One of the modern challenges to the existing governance structure is the growing interest of nations in accessing untapped natural resources in Antarctica, such as freshwater, minerals, and marine organisms. With the mineral ban under the Madrid Protocol subject to review after 2048, concerns about future exploitation are growing, prompting the need for a stronger legal regime grounded in equity and sustainability.[104]

The geopolitical landscape has also been evolving, with rising participation from non- consultative parties and emerging powers in Antarctic governance. There is an increasing need to revise the ATS mechanisms to include broader representation and enhance compliance through binding dispute settlement mechanisms. [105] Additionally, private actors and tourism have emerged as factors necessitating stricter environmental regulation and monitoring under the ATS.[106]

The Antarctic legal governance regime is often considered a model for managing other global commons such as the high seas, outer space, and cyberspace, particularly in terms of collective responsibility, precautionary regulation, and intergenerational equity.[107] The Antarctic framework illustrates how law can function as a moral instrument, as it not only prohibits harmful activity but actively promotes scientific collaboration and sustainable environmental management.[108]

In conclusion, the environmental and legal governance of Antarctica has created a relatively successful regime of global cooperation. The challenges ahead—ranging from geopolitical interests and climate change to governance inclusivity—require ongoing legal innovation, reinforcement of treaty commitments, and a consistent application of global justice principles in law.[109]

Conclusion And Suggestions The exploration of the concept of global justice and its application to the enviro-legal governance of Antarctica reveals the significant role that international law plays in protecting global commons through a justice-oriented approach.[110] The idea that no single state owns Antarctica, combined with the collective duty of the international community to preserve its unique ecosystem, represents a living embodiment of global justice principles such as equity, sustainability, intergenerational justice, and universal participation.[111]

Through our study, we observed that the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has served as a remarkable example of multilateral cooperation, preventing militarization and encouraging scientific research in a peaceful and environmentally conscious manner. [112] The Madrid Protocol further strengthens this regime by establishing Antarctica as a natural reserve and enforcing stringent environmental standards through legally binding obligations.[113]

However, despite the apparent success, challenges such as climate change, geopolitical competition, commercial interests, and future debates over the mineral exploitation ban (post-2048) call for urgent reforms and modernization of the governance framework.[114] The global justice perspective underlines the need to treat Antarctica not as a resource frontier but as a shared heritage of humankind, requiring collective stewardship based on moral and legal responsibility.[115]

hypothesis that global justice remains vital for ensuring equitable and sustainable governance in Antarctica and that legal innovation needs to address emerging global challenges stands proved. The legal governance structure, rooted in international cooperation and justice, continues to serve as a model yet demands reinforcement in the face of emerging threats.[116]for Strengthening the Enviro-Legal Governance of Antarctica there are some suggesstions that to Reinforce Treaty Obligations through Binding Mechanisms, Introduce a dispute resolution system within the ATS framework to ensure compliance and accountability of states violating environmental norms or engaging in prohibited activities. Also  Extention of the Ban on Mineral Exploitation Beyond 2048 to preserve Antarctica's ecological sanctity.

By Expanding Participation and Equity in Decision-Making Include more non-consultative parties and developing countries in the decision-making processes of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings to make the governance framework more democratic. Enhance Scientific Collaboration and Data Transparency Foster more collaborative research across countries, with open access to environmental and climate data to facilitate evidence-based policymaking. Also  Regulate Antarctic Tourism and Private Activities Implement, a binding regulatory framework to manage the growing tourism sector and ensure all private activities adhere to environmental safeguards.

Address Climate Change through Coordinated Action
Establish a formal linkage between the ATS and global climate treaties like the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement to integrate mitigation and adaptation policies. And Create a unified global commons governance framework. Use the Antarctic model to develop legal regimes for other global commons such as the deep seabed, outer space, and cyberspace to ensure environmental sustainability and equitable access.

Hence, Antarctica's governance is not only a legal success but a moral statement of what the world can achieve when driven by a sense of shared responsibility and justice. The application of global justice in law has created a framework where cooperation prevails over conflict and conservation over exploitation. Moving forward, continued engagement, legal Innovation and commitment to justice will determine whether Antarctica can remain a beacon of peace and sustainability for the generations to come.

End Notes:

1. Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice 19 (Belkanp Press of Harvard University Press, London, 2009).
2. Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations 21 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979).
3. Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights 12 (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2002).
4. Christopher C. Joyner, Legal Implications of the Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind 30(3) International Law Review 351(1990).
5. Patricia Birnie and Alan Boyle, International Law and the Environment 12 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002).
6. Donald R. Rothwell, International Law and the Protection of the Antarctic Environment 10 Indian Journal of International Law 137 (1990).
7. Duncan French, Developing States and International Environmental Law: The Importance of Equity and the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 35(2000).
8. Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law 23 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).
9. Gillian Triggs, The Antarctic Treaty System: A Model of Legal Creativity and Cooperation 36 Environmental Policy and Law 137 (2007).
10. Kees Bastmeijer and Ricardo Roura, Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica 5(1) Environmental Law Review 27 (2004).
11. R.R. Churchill, The Antarctic Treaty System: Legal and Environmental Challenges 40(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 365 (1991).
12. Paul Arthur Berkman and Oran R. Young, Governance and Environmental Change in the Arctic Ocean 324 Science 339 (2009).
13. Christopher C. Joyner, Governing the Frozen Commons: The Antarctic Regime and Environmental Protection 77 (University of South Carolina Press, 1998).
14. Alan Boyle, Global Commons and the Law of the Sea 36(3) International Law Review 223 (2005).
15. United Nations, Report No. 232 : Report of the Secretary-General on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, (Washington A/74/70, 2019), available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/74/70 (last visited at April 11, 2025).
16. Davor Vidas, The Antarctic Treaty System and the Law of the Sea 5(2) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 259.(2000).
17. Kees Bastmeijer, Protecting the Polar Marine Environment: Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention 3(2) The Polar Journal 142 (2009).
18. Donald R. Rothwell, The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law 42 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
19. Philippe Sands and Jacqueline Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law 56 (4th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2018).
20. Christopher C. Joyner, Antarctica and International Law: A Collection of Inter-State and National Documents (Vol. 2, Oceana Publications, 1995).
21. David Held, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus 22 (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2004).
22. Sujian Guo et al, Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice : Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators 12 Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 511-546 (2019).
23. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 25 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971).
24. Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations 16 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979).
25. Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights 43 (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2002).
26. Ibid.
27. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality 66 (Basic Books, New York, 1983).
28. Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations 99 (Knopf, New York, 1948).
29. Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization 78 (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1996).
30. Upendra Baxi, The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism: Explorations in the Geographies of Injustice in S.K. Verma & Kusum (eds), Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000).
31. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 44 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971).
32. Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations 56 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979).
33. Justice Hisashi Owada, Some Reflection on Justice in a Globalizing World 97 American Society of International Law Proceedings 181 (2003).
34. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 65 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971).
35. Ibid
36. Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979).
37. Ibid.
38. Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls 6 (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1989).
39. Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights 76 (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2002).
40. David Held, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus 44 (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2004).
41. Ibid.
42. Id.
43. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality 12 (Basic Books, New York, 1983).
44. Thomas Nagel, “The Problem of Global Justice” 33(2) Philosophy & Public Affairs 113 (2005).
45. Ibid.
46. Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations 13 (Knopf, New York, 1948).
47. Ibid.
48. Id.
49. Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large : Cultural Dimensions of Globalization 21 (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,1996).
50. Ibid.
51. Id.
52. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
53. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476.
54. Ibid at 9.
55. Id.
56. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio de Janeiro, 1992 art 3.
57. Ibid.
58. Upendra Baxi, “The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism: Explorations in the Geographies of injustice” in S.K. Verma & Kusum (eds), Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000).
59. Ibid.
60. Id.
61. Id.
62. David Held, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2004).
63. Ibid.
64. Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2002).
65. Gillian Triggs, “The Antarctica Treaty System: A model of Legal Creativity and Cooperation” 36(3) Environmental Policy and Law 137 (2007).
66. The Antarctic Treaty, 1959.
67. Ibid.
68. Id.
69. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol), adopted 4 October 1991.
70. Ibid, art 7 at 11.
71. Id.
72. Id. art 72.
73. Christopher C. Joyner, Governing the Frozen Commons: The Antarctic Regime and Environmental Protection (University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, 1998).
74. Ibid.
75. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, art.136.
76. Ibid.
77. Id.
78. Supra note 9 at 4.
79. Supra note 69 at 11.
80. Supra note 3 at 3.
81. Supra note 9 at 4.
82. Ibid.
83. Id.
84. Supra note 21 at 5.
85. Supra note 4 at 3.
86. Gillian Triggs, “The Antarctic Treaty System: A Model of Legal Creativity and Cooperation” 36(3) Environmental Policy and Law 137 (2007).
87. Ibid.
88. Id.
89. The Antarctic Treaty, 1959.
90. Ibid, art. I–II.
91. Id., art. IV.
92. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol), 1991.
93. Ibid, preamble.
94. Id., art. 3.
95. Id., art.7.
96. Id.
97. Committee for Environmental Protection, Annual Report, Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (2023).
98. Ibid.
99. National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research (NCPOR), India’s Antarctic Programme Overview (2023).
100. The Constitution of India, art. 48A, 51A(g).
101. Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), 1980.
102. CCAMLR, Annual Report (2023).
103. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992; Paris Agreement, 2015.
104. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol), art. 25(2).
105. Supra note 9 at 4.
106. Ibid.
107. Christopher C. Joyner, Governing the Frozen Commons: The Antarctic Regime and Environmental Protection (University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, 1998).
108. Ibid.
109. Id. at 16.
110. Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (Harvard University Press 2009).
111. The Antarctic Treaty, 1959.
112. Ibid.
113. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol) (1991).
114. Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights (Polity Press 2002).
115. Christopher C. Joyner, Governing the Frozen Commons: The Antarctic Regime and Environmental Protection (1998).
116. Gillian Triggs, "The Antarctic Treaty System: A Model of Legal Creativity and Cooperation" 36(3) Environmental Policy and Law 137 (2007).