|About the Anti-Antarctic Treaty System (AATS)
From a global perspective, the Antarctic Treaty has a significant, but not even a majority of support, since only 50 UN member states recognise it. 
Who owns Antarctica? According to one observer, "science has been king, thanks to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959".  So the de facto king of Antarctica is not really any sovereign state juridically speaking, but any non-sovereign NGO that would be defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code as a qualified organisation, ie corporations, trusts, community chests, some limited liability companies, and unincorporated associations. 
Between 1987 and 1992, Greenpeace definitely became a 'one-term President', when it succeeded in establishing and maintaining World Park Base, a year-round base in Antarctica. 
More from the aforementioned observer:
Meanwhile, more than a hundred developing nations have challenged the Treaty organization as unfair. In 1983 they raised the "Antarctic question" in the United Nations, borrowing a phrase from the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention that labels unclaimed deep-sea beds "the common heritage of mankind." In their view the Treaty organization is self-appointed and thus arbitrary, secretive in its meetings and thus arrogant. Membership in the "club" is open to all nations who support active research stations; the cost of which is prohibitive to many third world nations. AATS member countries hold similar, but not identical views.
Antarctica, according to the Antarctic Treaty System, is all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. The treaty, which entered into force on 23 June 1961, currently has 50 signatory nations.
Seven sovereign states had made eight territorial claims to land in Antarctica south of the 60° S parallel before 1961: Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Russia and the United States reserved the right to claim areas. Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom all recognise each other's claims, which do not overlap. Argentina and Chile, however, dispute the United Kingdom's claim, and make their own counter-claims that overlap both UK's and each other's. With friends like these...
The Antarctic Treaty does not in itself either recognise or dispute any territorial claims, leaving this matter to individual signatories. Most of the world's countries, including the United States, do not recognise any national claims to Antarctica. 
The Antarctic Treaty provides for accession by any state which is a member of the United Nations, and for any other state only by invitation of all Consultative Parties (ie by all the 50 signatory nations).
This is an undeniable fact: most of the world's countries, including the United States, do not recognise any national claims to Antarctica, and only the opinion of UN member states matters or is accounted for in this regard.
It should be noted that this political philosophy excludes the opinions of:
Traditionally, sovereign states and the Holy See were the sole subjects of international law. With the proliferation of international organizations over the last century, they have in some cases been recognized as relevant parties as well. Recent interpretations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international trade law (e.g., North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 11 actions) have been inclusive of corporations, and even of certain individuals. In 1982, the Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad argued at the UN General Assembly that the Antarctic Treaty was a "neo-colonial document which does not reflect the true feeling of the members of the United Nations." Malaysia sought UN endorsement of the notion that Antarctica was the "common heritage of mankind" (terra communis, not terra nullius), in much the same way as had been accepted for the deep-sea bed by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. 
The position of the Malaysian Prime Minister, however, excludes many aforementioned non-UN member states, as well as many other subjects of international law.
The Antarctic Treaty System itself, even without regard to the terra communis ideology, effectively makes the United Nations, ie the powers that be (PTB), the sole party governing physical and/or virtual Antarctica.
Well, the Anti-Antarctic Treaty System (AATS) establishes, perhaps for the first time, a second party in charge of governing physical and/or virtual Antarctica, as AATS members consider themselves the anti-powers that be (anti-PTB).
If it is reasonable for a self-defined democratic country like the United States to have a two-party system governing the country, then it is equally reasonable for there to be at least two parties governing Antarctica as well: the PTB, and the anti-PTB.
Prior to the de jure AATS, the United Micronations Multi-Oceanic Archipelago (UMMOA) had started a de facto second Antarctic party when it made itself at home in the .TF ccTLD around 12 June 2012. On 18 June 2012, the UMMOA also selectively took over certain .AQ or Antarctica domains, within the .AQ ccTLD.
The power of the anti-PTB party, the second party currently governing Antarctica, has not abided since the establishment of the Anti-Antarctic Treaty System (AATS) either.
On 27 December 2012, the HMRD Cesidio Tallini, one of the Governors of the AATS, was made Ambassador at Large of Antarctica and Unrepresented or Underrepresented Polities for The Multipurpose Inter-Parliamentary Union (TMIPU). This may be the first time in history that a significant position was granted in Antarctica, and outside the colonial and tyrannical authority of the Antarctic Treaty System.