The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has frequently debated the involvement of the United Nations (UN) in the Antarctic over the last twenty years. In the 1980s and early 1990s, UN members were openly divided on the future of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).12 Non-Antarctic Treaty Parties (non-ATPs) continuously challenged the authority of Antarctic Treaty Parties (ATPs) to manage the Antarctic and argued that the ATS should be replaced by a new structure under the auspices of the LIN. During this period, ATPs refused to participate in UNGA debates on the 'Question of Antarctica' and resolutely countered the arguments put forward by non-ATPs.3 Despite ATPs efforts to ensure that the UN's role in the Antarctic remains limited and marginal, the UN has acquired a role in Antarctic affairs. UNGA debates on the 'Question of Antarctica' have increased awareness in the international community about the Antarctic and arguably increased the transparency ofthe ATS. This paper reviews the relationship between the ATS and the UN since the early 1980s and considers what the relationship between the two parties will be like in the future. To analyse the relationship between the ATS and the UN this paper is divided into three parts. Part one details non-ATPs' criticisms of the ATS during UNGA debates and the arguments put forward by ATPs to counter non-ATPs' condemnation of the ATS. In particular, this part focuses on whether non-ATPs' criticisms are still valid. Part two briefly outlines the challenges the ATS is facing and needs to address in the next ten years. Part three examines whether the ATS or the UN is in a better position to deal with these challenges. In essence it is argued that the ATS is the appropriate body to manage the Antarctic in the future. I. INTRODUCTION The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has frequently debated the involvement of the United Nations (UN) in the Antarctic over the last twenty years. In the 1980s and early 1990s, UN members were openly divided on the future of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).12 Non-Antarctic Treaty Parties (non-ATPs) continuously challenged the authority of Antarctic Treaty Parties (ATPs) to manage the Antarctic and argued that the ATS should be replaced by a new structure under the auspices of the LIN. During this period, ATPs refused to participate in UNGA debates on the 'Question of Antarctica' and resolutely countered the arguments put forward by non-ATPs.3 Despite ATPs efforts to ensure that the UN's role in the Antarctic remains limited and marginal, the UN has acquired a role in Antarctic affairs. UNGA debates on the 'Question of Antarctica' have increased awareness in the international community about the Antarctic and arguably increased the transparency ofthe ATS. This paper reviews the relationship between the ATS and the UN since the early 1980s and considers what the relationship between the two parties will be like in the future. To analyse the relationship between the ATS and the UN this paper is divided into three parts. Part one details non-ATPs' criticisms of the ATS during UNGA debates and the arguments put forward by ATPs to counter non-ATPs' condemnation of the ATS. In particular, this part focuses on whether non-ATPs' criticisms are still valid. Part two briefly outlines the challenges the ATS is facing and needs to address in the next ten years. Part three examines whether the ATS or the UN is in a better position to deal with these challenges. In essence it is argued that the ATS is the appropriate body to manage the Antarctic in the future.