No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Latin America and the Antarctic: an Exclusive Club
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0022216X00007963/resource/name/firstPage-S0022216X00007963a.jpg)
- Type
- Review and Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985
References
1 That the South Atlantic area as a whole is now viewed as of prime strategic and economic importance was attested during the War of the South-West Atlantic of 1982 by Argentina's foreign minister, N. Costa Méndez, who bluntly informed a television programme on 15 April 1982 that ‘there is something more important [than the matter of claims]. The meaning of the Argentine presence in the islands is that Argentina controls an area in the South Atlantic, politically and economically’. See The Economist, 24 04 1982.Google Scholar
2 Van, der Essen, Symposium, p. 235.Google Scholar
3 Sollie, ibid., p. 324.
4 Van der Essen, ibid., p. 234.
5 Guyer, ibid., p. 278.
6 UN Report, 2 11, p. 25.Google Scholar
7 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Bk v. i.e. 30. 1776).
8 Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, Norway, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
9 UN Report, 31 10, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
10 For Peru's ambivalence, see UN Report, 11., p. 137Google Scholar Chile's order of priorities in the Antarctic is fully revealed in ibid., 2 11., p. 17 as follows: (i) ‘its geographical and strategic importance’ (ii) ‘its renewable and non-renewable resources’, and (iii) ‘its scientific interest’.Google Scholar
11 Argentina and Chile can claim to be much closer to the nearest point in the Antarctic (950 km) than their fellow-claimants Austrialia (3,500 km) or New Zealand (2,000 km).
12 On Uruguay, see document of accession, in 19 International Legal Materials (1980), p. 547.Google Scholar On Brazil, see , J. SimŌes, ‘Brazilian Antarctic Research Programme’, Polar Record vol. 22 (1984), pp. 325–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 109.Google Scholar
14 The Guardian, 17 02 1984.Google Scholar
15 International Herald Tribune, 11 04 1984.Google Scholar
16 See North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Western Germany/Denmark/the Netherlands), ICJ Reports 1969 p. 22et seq.Google Scholar
17 Text in Brownlie, I. (ed.), Basic Documents in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd edition, 1983), pp. 122–6.Google Scholar
18 Text in ibid., pp. 204–11. For an analysis, see Cheng, B., ‘The Moon Treaty: agreement governing the activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies other than the Earth’, Current Legal Problems (1980) vol. 33, PP. 213–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 UN Report, 2 11, pp. 30–2.Google Scholar
20 Zegers, F., ‘The Antarctic System and the Utilisation of Resources’, Univeristy of Miami Law Review (1978), at pp. 431, 470, and 471.Google Scholar
21 UN Report, 31 10, p. 65.Google Scholar
22 Whales fall under the authority of the International Whaling Commission.
23 Couratier, , Symposium, pp. 142–3.Google Scholar
24 ibid., p. 144.
25 Couratier, , Symposium, p. 140.Google Scholar
26 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 160.Google Scholar
27 UN Report, 9 11, p. 90.Google Scholar
28 Article I of the Canberra Convention.
29 Article XII of the Canberra Convention.
30 Zegers, , Symposium, p. 155.Google Scholar
31 Auburn, , p. 224.Google Scholar
32 Couratier, , Symposium, p. 147.Google Scholar
33 UN Report, 31 10, p. 63.Google Scholar
34 González-Ferrán, , Symposium, p. 164.Google Scholar
35 ibid., p. 163.
36 UN Report, 31 10, p. 67.Google Scholar
37 The Guardian, 18 02, 1984.Google Scholar
38 UN Report, 9 11, PP. 127–8.Google Scholar
39 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 241.Google Scholar
40 González-Ferrán, , Symposium, p. 162.Google Scholar
41 Sollie, , Symposium, p. 318.Google Scholar
42 Beeby, ibid., p. 192.
43 Orrego, Vicuña, Symposium, pp. 199–201.Google Scholar
44 Auburn, , op cit., pp. 260–1.Google Scholar
45 ibid., p. 245 and UN Report, 31 10., p. 68,Google Scholar
46 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 262.Google Scholar
47 Zegers, F., ‘The Antarctic System and the Utilisation of Resources’, University of Miami Law Review, no. 33, (1978). 471.Google Scholar
48 UN Report, 31 10., p. 67.Google Scholar
49 UN Report, 31 10., p. 68. An Expert Working Group was set up in 1980, but the guidance it provided was disappointingly general and wide.Google Scholar
50 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 264.Google Scholar
51 Bergsager, , Symposium, pp. 174–5.Google Scholar
52 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 255.Google Scholar
53 Beeby, , Symposium, pp. 193–4.Google Scholar
54 Financial Times, 26 08 1984.Google Scholar
55 United Nations, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Index and Final Act of the Third UNCLOS (New York: United Nations, 1983).Google Scholar
56 Harry, R. L., ‘The Antarctic Régime and the Law of the Sea Convention: an Australian View’, Virginia Journal of International Law vol. 21, (1981), pp. 727–44.Google Scholar
57 UN Report, 31 10, p. 70.Google Scholar
58 Essen, , Symposium, p. 242.Google Scholar The editor expresses a marked desire to see the jurisdiction of such an International Sea-bed Authority excluded from the continental shelf of the Antarctic. See ibid., pp. 211–12.
60 Article 76 of the Montego Bay Convention defines the continental shelf as the sea-bed and subsoil of the submerged areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory up to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline.
60 Infante, Symposium, p. 253.
61 Guillaume, ibid., p. 189.
62 Shusterich, E. M., Resource Management and the Oceans: the Political Economy of Deep Sea Mining (Boulder, Colorado; Westview Press, 1982) provides a good summary of United States policy toward deep-sea mining.Google Scholar
63 Brazil made a move in that direction in 1956. See UN Report, 2 11., p. 3.Google Scholar
64 Guyer, , Symposium, p. 274. The inverted commas enclosing the word ‘justice’ are Guyer's.Google Scholar
65 Beeby, ibid., p. 196.
66 UN Chronicle, 17–1812, 1982.Google Scholar
67 SeeBeck, P. J., ‘Antarctica: a Case for the UN?’, The World Today, vol. 40, (1984), pp. 165–72.Google Scholar
68 Ibid.
69 UN Report, 31 10., p. 29.Google Scholar
70 Brennan, , Symposium, p. 226.Google Scholar
71 Sollie, ibid., p. 332.
72 Luard, E., ‘Who Owns the Antarctica’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 62, (1984), pp. 1175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73 Beeby, , Symposium, pp. 193–8.Google Scholar
74 See, for instance, Rich, R., ‘A Minerals Régime for Antarctica’, International and Comparative Law quarterly, vol. 31, (1982), pp. 709–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75 Wolfrum, R., Die Internalionalisierung staatsfreier Räume (Berlin: Springer, 1984), pp. 66–7 and 91.Google Scholar
76 Sollie, , Symposium, p. 334, Note 12.Google Scholar
77 Treaty concerning Spitzbergen, 9 Feb. 1920, Article 3.
78 Ibid., Article 8.
79 Orrego, Vicũna, Symposium, p. 244.Google Scholar
80 Gonzaález-Ferrán, Ibid., p. 164.
81 Luard, , op. cit., p. 335.Google Scholar
82 Jøhan, Jorgen Holst, a well–known Norwegian politician, writing in the Labour Party paper Arbeiderbladet of 30 04 and 13 05 1982,Google Scholar suggests the withdrawal of Norway's territorial claims in the Antarctic, See, Sollie, , Symposium, p. 325.Google Scholar
83 See Honnold, E. E., ‘Thaw in International Law'. Rights in Antarctica under the Law of Common Spaces’, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 87 (1977/1978), pp. 804–59.Google Scholar
84 Sollie, , Symposium, p. 324.Google Scholar
85 UN Report, 2 11, p. 25. Precisely ten lines out of the inordinately long, twenty-five page report by Chile, deal with the mineral issue.Google Scholar
86 Ibid., p. 32.
87 UN Report, 29 10. p. 24.Google Scholar
88 Ibid., 29 11., p. 31.
89 Ibid., p. 11.
90 UN Report, 9 11., p. 37.Google Scholar
91 Ibid., p. 74.
92 Ibid., 29 10., p. 102.
93 Orrego, Vicuña, Symposium, p. 200.Google Scholar
94 UN Report, 2 11., p. 18.Google Scholar
95 UN Report, 9 11., p. 45: ‘In the case of the Philippines, the Treaties of Paris and Washington could be the subject of scrutiny by the Consultative Parties if the Philippines pursues its position on Antarctica with Malaysia’.Google Scholar
96 Ibid., p. 99.
97 Beck, P. J., op. cit., p. 168.Google Scholar
98 UN Report, 2 11., p. 18.Google Scholar
99 Ibid., p. 40.
100 On this point, see Pallone, F., ‘Resources Exploitation: The Threat to the Legal Régime of Antarctica’, The International Lawyer, vol. (1978), pp. 547–61.Google Scholar
101 Luard, , op. cit., p. 1192.Google Scholar