In some ways yes: without the Antarctic Treaty many humans probably would have continued destroying Antarctica. However if we don't do something about global warming it might have just delayed their execution.
However in the division of countries for certain parts of Antarctica there are a few countries that prohibit this and allow that, meaning animals in different parts of Antarctica are affected in different ways.
All in all yes it did affect the wildlife. But for the better or the worse is up to you.
There is no wildlife on the Antarctic continent. Some sea birds visit the beaches during breeding season.
There is no wildlife refuge on Antarctica: all land and ice south of 60 degrees is protected by the Antarctic Treaty (1961). As well, there are no states on Antarctica, because there are no nation states on the continent.
Disturbing wildlife in Antarctica is forbidden by the Antarctic Treaty, agreed to by governments representing 80% of the earth's population. Scientists who study Antarctic animals do so with supreme attention to humane treatment of the animals.
No. The Antarctic Treaty prohibits any private or commercial 'harvesting' of animals south of 60 degrees S.
In Washington D.C on 1 December 1959. It came into affect in 1961
The Antarctic Treaty is a TREATY not a living thing so it can not become extinct.
The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959.
All of planet earth benefits from the Antarctic Treaty, because science conducted there -- the study of the health of planet earth -- is shared with all countries that signed or ratified the Antarctic Treaty.
201546894
afghanastan albania are in the treaty
iT WAS tHe Antarctic treaty!
The Antarctic Treaty has not been broken, it may have been violated, but it remains in full force and effect.