scholarly journals SHAPING AN ANTARCTIC IDENTITY IN ARGENTINA AND CHILE

2020 ◽  
pp. 53-88
Author(s):  
Ignacio Javier Cardone
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
National Identities ◽  
South American ◽  
Strategic Communications ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Original Objective ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
South American Continent

Since the end of the 19th century, both Argentina and Chile have woven Antarctica—the white continent—into the conception of their national territories and identities, establishing a tradition that continues today. To understand the process through which these identities have been constructed, this article examines the strategic communications of the countries involved in the dispute over territories south of 60° south latitude. Early negotiations were incidental and reactive, but as the situation evolved internationally the two South American countries became entangled in their strategies to incorporate portions of Antarctica into their national territories, employing diplomatic interchange, symbolic actions, and the projection of an Antarctic identity by means of public discourse, educational curriculum, and maps. Furthermore, they promoted the idea of an ‘American Antarctica’ as a way of linking Antarctica with the South American continent in an effort to obtain international recognition for their territorial claims. Both countries were successful in instilling a domestic ‘national Antarctic consciousness’, but failed to gather international support. Although their strategic communications regarding Antarctica were successful in terms of the original objective of integrating the idea into their respective national identities, resorting to territoriality seems to have limited their ability to adapt to new conditions, such as those established by the Antarctic Treaty in 1959.

The Laws of Territorial Acquisition as Applied to Claims to Antarctic Territory: A Review of Legal Scholarship

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 556-606
Author(s):  
Indi Hodgson-Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
International Law ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Definitive Answer ◽  
Antarctic Continent ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Antarctic

Three substantive areas of analysis have emerged in the legal scholarship of the validity in international law of Antarctic territorial claims. The first is the physical amenability of the Antarctic continent to claims of territory. The second, and largest, is the application of traditional laws of territorial acquisition to Antarctic claims. The alternative argument of Antarctica as res communis is the final substantive thread of discussion.These threads of discussion have dominant arguments. They do not, however, have definite conclusions, leaving the academic conjecture as to the validity of Antarctic territorial claims unresolved. Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty makes an urgent definitive answer unnecessary. However, with new issues emerging related to sovereignty in Antarctica, such as Marine Protected Areas, and more activity from growing Antarctic Treaty membership, public discourse consistently raises the issue.As we enter this new discursive environment, a review of the main arguments of the three substantive areas of legal scholarship is timely. This article will also attempt to identify the dominant attitudes regarding the validity of territorial claims to Antarctica.

Thawing the ice: a contemporary solution to Antarctic sovereignty

Polar Record ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 436-447
Author(s):  
Wygene Chong
Keyword(s):  
Primary Reason ◽  
Global Commons ◽  
Governance Framework ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
The Future ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACTThe Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has provided a peaceful framework for governing the continent over many decades, in spite of seven extant territorial claims. However, its method of freezing these claims has been criticised for being short-sighted and ineffective in providing a long-term solution. This paper argues to the contrary. It undertakes a brisk analysis of different categories of alternatives: global commons, absolute sovereignty, restricted sovereignty and shared sovereignty. After dismissing each category for various reasons, it promotes the reform of the existing ATS, in which a long-term vision and modified chairmanship structure provide stronger leadership and more effective implementation. Essentially, it holds that the primary reason there is criticism of the system is because it is not functioning as well as it might be. The paper not only contends that a developed ATS is an achievable aim, but that it could eventually develop into a restricted, shared sovereignty governance framework. That form of governance, which would emerge over time, could be a more durable solution that resolves the competing territorial claims. In this way, the paper charts a potential pathway for the future of Antarctic governance. This path begins, however, with a reformed ATS.

Latin America and Antarctica

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Howkins
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
South American ◽  
Early 19Th Century ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Antarctic Continent ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Economic Boom ◽  
The Antarctic

Since the early 19th century, a number of Latin American countries have had active interests in the Antarctic continent. These interests began to accelerate in the early 20th century, and during the 1930s and 1940s, Argentina and Chile formalized sovereignty claims to the Antarctic Peninsula region. These claims overlapped not only with each other, but also with Great Britain’s claim to the “Falkland Islands Dependencies.” The two Latin American claims tended to be framed in the language of anti-imperialism, and for a while at least the idea of a “South American Antarctica” emerged to suggest a common front against the British Empire. Rivalry between Argentina and Chile, however, remained strong, and the alliance against imperialism never developed into a lasting agreement. In 1959, Argentina and Chile joined with ten other nations—including Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union—in signing the Antarctic Treaty. This Treaty suspended sovereignty claims and created a “continent dedicated to peace and science.” Following the ratification of the Treaty in 1961, Argentina and Chile lessened their hostility to the imperial strategy of using scientific research as a justification for political claims, and came to be enthusiastic members of what some outsiders labeled an “exclusive club.” During the 1980s and early 1990s, four other Latin American nations—Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, and Ecuador—became full members of the Antarctic Treaty, attracted, in part, by the prospect of sharing in a potential minerals bonanza in the southern continent. This expected economic boom never came, however, and instead the Antarctic continent became one of the most protected environments anywhere on the planet by the terms of the 1991 Madrid Environmental Protocol.

The Moral Limits of Territorial Claims in Antarctica

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra Mancilla
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Territorial Status ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System ◽  
Moral Limits

AbstractBy virtue of the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, the territorial claims to Antarctica of seven of the original signatories were held in abeyance or “frozen.” Considered by many as an exemplar of international law, the Antarctic Treaty System has come to be increasingly questioned, however, in a very much changed global scenario that presents new challenges to the governance of the White Continent. In this context, it is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of the moral weight of those initial claims, which stand (despite being frozen) as a cornerstone of the treaty. The aim of this article is to offer an appraisal of such claims, which may be divided into two main kinds: those grounded on some relevant link to the territory, and those grounded on official documents and geographical doctrines. After pointing to the limitations and challenges that they face, I conclude with some remarks about how this assessment ought to serve as a starting point to rethink the territorial status of Antarctica.

Inspections in Antarctica

1971 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-114
Author(s):  
Truls Hanevold
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Free Area

Because of the Antarctic Treaty, Antarctica has become the first, and so far the only, major demilitarized and atom free area. Among the rights given to treaty members is that of mutual inspection. The article gives an account of the major problems connected with the negotiations leading up to the inclusion of the inspection article in the treaty. After a description of the inspections which have been carried out, the ability of the member states to inspect is discussed in relation to the economic, scientific and logistic capability differences existing between them. Further, attention is drawn to the questions of effectiveness and sanctions. The possible consequences of being able and willing to inspect for the question of territorial claims and rights in the area are discussed, and finally, some alternative ways of carrying out inspections are suggested.

scholarly journals THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STATUS OF THE BRITISH ANTARCTIC TERRITORY AS A SECTOR OF ANTARCTICA AND THE SUBJECT OF PARTNERSHIP WITH THE KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

2016 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Игорь Ирхин ◽  
Igor Irkhin
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regime ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Current Period ◽  
The Status ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
The Antarctic

The article emphases that the current period of legal vacuum in the form of “freezing” the territorial claims of states in Antarctica, including the British Antarctic Territory, is not an unconditional guarantee means to prevent the international communication subjects’ claiming for the future sovereign and “quasi-sovereign” standing to the Antarctica and its regions with the formalization of the public authorities’ respective powers in the national legislation. The author also emphases on the relevance of improving the Antarctic’s international-legal regime. This includes the detail of unification and standardization of responsibility mechanisms for violation of the existing legal acts’ provisions that determines the procedure and conditions for international cooperation on this continent. It is proposed to consider the validity and appropriateness of the Antarctic Treaty 1959 regulations on consolidation opportunities of previously asserted rights of Contracting Parties or their claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. The author believes that the rule of this legal act generates the problem of uncertainty of the States sovereign rights over the continent and its particular parts. The article also brings an argument that position on the lack of validity of the relations qualification between Britain and the British Antarctic Territory as a partnership and as the management of overseas territory are carried out directly and exclusively by the British authorities in the person of Commissioner, there is no “local” institutions of public authority and no permanent population. In addition, the category of the Kingdom’s sovereignty, which is the basic qualification under the partnership, excludes the independence of the Overseas Territories as it absorbs partnerships leveling its qualitative characteristics. The author analyzes features of the constitutional status of the Commissioner as a representative of the British Crown. It is necessary to bring the provisions of the Order of the British Antarctic Territory 1989 in line with the Antarctic Treaty 1959.

Common interests in the international space of Antarctica

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Arthur Berkman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
International Space ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Antarctic

The Antarctic Treaty was adopted by twelve nations in Washington, DC on 1 December 1959 with the interests of science and the progress of all mankind. Seven of these nations asserted territorial claims, including the overlapping claims of Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom in the Antarctic Peninsula. The five other nations were non-claimants, including the United States and Soviet Union (now Russian Federation), which reserved rights to press claims in the future.

Blue Ice, Meteorites, Fossil Penguins and Rare Minerals: The Case for Enhanced Protection of Antarctica’s Unique Geoheritage – An International Legal Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-40
Author(s):  
David Leary
Keyword(s):  
Protected Area ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Draft Code ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

Its isolation and extreme climate means Antarctica is one of the world’s richest regions for untouched geoheritage. The potential of mining in Antarctica is often talked of in public discourse as a future threat to Antarctica even though the prohibition on mining is absolute and is likely to stay so indefinitely. As such mining does not pose a realistic threat to Antarctica’s geoheritage. The impacts of scientific research and tourism pose more pressing challenges to Antarctica’s geoheritage. This paper considers emerging debates in the Antarctic Treaty System on the need for further protection of Antarctica’s geoheritage. After considering the concept of geoheritage the paper considers key threats to Antarctic geoheritage. The role of Antarctic Specially Protected Area system in the protection of Antarctica’s geoheritage is then considered as is the draft code of conduct on geosciences field research currently being developed within the Antarctic Treaty System. The final part of the paper then goes on to examine how the Antarctic Treaty system could in part draw on the experience of other international initiatives, including the frameworks associated with the UNESCO Global Geoparks movement in developing an Antarctic System for protection of geoheritage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document