This paper considers how a liability regime should be drafted to encourage operators and sates to comply with the regime. In summary this paper makes the following recommendations: (a) (b) (c) (d) Scope of application: First, a liability regime should include all activities covered by the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEP), including science and logistic activities. Although a regime will not cover activities such as fishing or whaling, environmental damage caused by fishing vessels should be covered. Second, a comprehensive approach should be taken towards a liability regime. A liability regime should cover all types of environmental damage covered by the PEP, not just environmental emergencies. Definition of damage: An environmental in-Ipact must be 'significant' and 'harmful' to constitute damage. Environmental impacts from activities subject to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) procedures should not be excluded from the definition of damage. But a provision should be included that damage does not include impacts that could not have been reasonably predicted. Standard of liability: Strict liability is the appropriate standard for a liability regime for environmental damage in the Antarctic. This standard should not be altered for irreparable damage, states or state entities, and science and logistic activities. Joint and several liability: Joint liability, but not several liability, should be included in a liability regime. This paper considers how a liability regime should be drafted to encourage operators and sates to comply with the regime. In summary this paper makes the following recommendations: (a) (b) (c) (d) Scope of application: First, a liability regime should include all activities covered by the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEP), including science and logistic activities. Although a regime will not cover activities such as fishing or whaling, environmental damage caused by fishing vessels should be covered. Second, a comprehensive approach should be taken towards a liability regime. A liability regime should cover all types of environmental damage covered by the PEP, not just environmental emergencies. Definition of damage: An environmental in-Ipact must be 'significant' and 'harmful' to constitute damage. Environmental impacts from activities subject to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) procedures should not be excluded from the definition of damage. But a provision should be included that damage does not include impacts that could not have been reasonably predicted. Standard of liability: Strict liability is the appropriate standard for a liability regime for environmental damage in the Antarctic. This standard should not be altered for irreparable damage, states or state entities, and science and logistic activities. Joint and several liability: Joint liability, but not several liability, should be included in a liability regime.