War zones have long ceased to be a novelty, but they remain a legal enigma. Although existing for almost a century, the issue remains unsettled, feeding prolonged legal speculation. The question of the legality of war zones typifies the kind of legal controversies with which a potential codification attempt for the laws of naval warfare will have to cope. The problem arises when an antiquated body of law intersects proliferating State practice which runs contrary to its dictates, when new realities come to upset fundamental principles of humanitarian law.

After the successful conclusion of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, a number of developing countries outside the Antarctic Treaty System began to pay increasingly close attention to Antarctica. It was said that there were abundant valuable resources there; the Antarctic Treaty Consultative parties (ATCPs) began to negotiate an Antarctic minerals regime. They suggested that the concept of the common heritage of mankind (CHM), applicable to the international sea-bed area, be expanded to apply to Antarctica, particularly to its resources. These countries raised the curtain on debating the question of Antarctica at the UN forum, and made the following question a subject for discussion by the international community: does the concept of CHM apply to Antarctica, and, if so, to what extent? This question has represented one of the strongest external challenges to the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS); indeed, it has been the central focus in the development of interest in the Antarctic minerals regime.