The footprint and cumulative impact of national governmental programme and tourist activities is increasing at marine and terrestrial sites across Antarctica. Associated impacts on species and ecosystems include habitat degradation, wildlife disturbance, pollution and the introduction of non-native species. Through Annex V to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, Parties commit themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment. In 2002, the Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA) management tool was established to ‘assist in the planning and co-ordination of activities, avoid possible conflicts, improve cooperation between Parties or minimise environmental impacts’. Subsequently, seven ASMAs were agreed during the period 2004 to 2008; however, no further ASMAs have been designated since then, despite at least six initiatives to do so by various individual or groups of Parties. Furthermore, one agreed ASMA was de-designated in 2014 and alternative site protection put in place. Here I investigate (i) how ASMA development and use contrasts with that of spatial protection tools such as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, (ii) the possible factors contributing to the failure to designate new ASMAs, and (iii) the potential future use of the tool to address Antarctica’s increasing spatial management needs. Revitalised use of ASMAs may help address existing and emerging governance and environmental management challenges. However, to be effective, Parties may need to soften their geopolitical positions, build consensus and identify sufficient resource to deliver spatial management objectives at increasingly busy and impacted sites across the continent.