Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-xlldj Total loading time: 0.437 Render date: 2021-04-21T00:12:57.889Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Particular generalisation: the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 in relation to the anti-nuclear movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

Jason Kendall Moore
Affiliation:
Centro de Estudios Hemisféricos y Polares, Balmaceda 37-121, Recreo Víña del Mar, V Región, Chile

Abstract

This article presents the US role in the formation of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 in relation to the era's anti-nuclear movement. The purpose is two-fold: to highlight the strategic orientation of US Antarctic policy, suggesting that it was less enlightened than it is frequently portrayed; and to highlight the influence of the anti-nuclear movement upon the treaty's inclusion of a test ban which the United States initially opposed, hoping to reserve the right to conduct nuclear tests. The treaty is depicted as a particular generalisation: one aspect of the cold war that gains significance when scrutinised in relation to another that is much better-known.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Allison, G. 1971. Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Auburn, F.M. 1982. Antarctic law and politics. London: C. Hurst and Co.Google Scholar
Bailey, F.G. 1983. The tactical uses of passion: an essay on power, reason and reality. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, P. 1986. The international politics of Antarctica. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Beck, P. 1990. Antarctica as a zone of peace: a strategic irrelevance? In: Herr, R., Hall, H.R. and Haward, M. (editors) Antarctica's future: continuity or change? Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Government Printing Office: 193224.Google Scholar
Bethe, H.A. 1991. The road from Los Alamos. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Boczek, B.A. 1984. The Soviet Union and the Antarctic regime. The American Journal of International Law 78 (4): 834858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bontecou, E. 1953. The federal loyalty-security program. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, P.S. 1985. By the bomb's early light: American thought and culture at the dawn of the atomic age. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Budd, W.F. 2002. The scientific imperative for Antarctic research. In: Jabour-Green, J., and Haward, M. (editors). The Antarctic: past, present, and future. Hobart, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for the Antarctic and Southern Ocean: 4159.Google Scholar
Chaturvedi, S. 1990. Dawning of Antarctica: a geopolitical analysis. New Delhi: Segment Books.Google Scholar
Child, J. 1988. Antarctica and south American geopolitics: frozen lebensraum. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cook, F.J. 1962. The warfare state. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Council on Foreign Relations. 1955. The United States in world affairs 1953. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Daniels, P.C.,1973. The Antarctic Treaty. In: Lewis, R.S., and Smith, P.M. (editors). Frozen future: a prophetic report from Antarctica. New York: Quadrangle Books: 3145.Google Scholar
Dennis, M.A. 1987. Accounting for research: new histories or corporate laboratories and the social history of American science. Social Studies of Science 17 (3): 479518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of State. 1946a. Ambassador in Santiago (Bowers) to Secretary of State, 8 August 1946. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/8–846.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1946b. US Navy (Dennison) to Division of Northern European Affairs (Cumming), 22 November 1946. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/11–2246.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1947a. Embassy in Paris (Caffery) to Secretary of State, 12 February 1947. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/2–1247.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1947b. Division of Northern European and others to Office of European Affairs and others, 8 September 1947. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/9–847.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948a. Secretary of State (Marshall) to Secretary of Defense (Forrestal), 10 June 1948 National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/4–1248.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948b. Secretary of State (Marshall) to Secretary of Defense (Forrestal), 8 July 1948 National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/7–1448.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948c. Division of European Affairs (Hickerman) to Legal Division (Gross), 17 June 1948. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/6–1748.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948 d. Acting Secretary of State (Lovett) to Ambassador in Santiago (Bowers), 22 November 1948. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/11–2248.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948e. Undersecretary of State (Lovett) to Secretary of Defense (Forrestal), [14 July 1948]. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/7–1448.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948f. Acting Secretary of State (Lovett) to Ambassador in Santiago (Bowers), 22 November 1948. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/11–2248.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948g. Division of Northern European Affairs (Green), memorandum for the files, 11 February 1948. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/2–1148.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1948h. Office of European Affairs (Raynor) to Division of Northern European Affairs (Green), 27 January 1948. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/1–2748.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1949. Division of Northern European Affairs (Hulley), memorandum of conversation 23 March 1949. National Archives, RG 59, 800.014 Antarctic/3–2349.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1951. Office of South American Affairs (Barall) and others, memorandum of conversation, 5 March 1951. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/3–151.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1953. Office of Intelligence Research (Boggs) to Bureau of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs (Ronhovde), 12 June 1953. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/6–1253.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1955a. Bureau of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs (Raynor), memorandum, 25 May 1955. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/5–2555.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1955b. US Information Service, Public Affairs Officer (Harkness), to US Information Agency, 16 March 1955. National Archives, RG 84, Chile, Santiago Embassy, Classified General Records 1953–1955.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1956a. Memorandum of conversation, 11 May 1956. National Archives, RG 84, Chile, Santiago Embassy, Classified General Records 1956–1961.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1956b. Operations Coordinating Board, progress report on Antarctica (NSC 5424/1), 8 August 1956. RG 84, Chile, Santiago Embassy, Classified General Records 1956–1961.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1957. Office of Inter-American Regional Political Affairs (Wilson), memorandum, 22 July 1957. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/7–2257.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1958a. Department of State to representatives of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, USSR, and the United Kingdom, 24 March 1958. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/3–2458.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1958b. Foreign Office to Department of State, 22 May 1958. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/5–2258.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1958c. Embassy in Canberra (Sebald) to Secretary of State, 6 June 1958. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/6–658.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1958d. Secretary of State (Dulles) to all diplomatic posts, 20 June 1958. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/[6–2058].Google Scholar
Department of State. 1958e. Memorandum of conversation with representatives of Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, and United Kingdom, 15 August 1958. National Archives, RG 59, 399.829/8–1558.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1958f. Memorandum on proposed Antarctica conference, 9 May 1958. National Archives, RG 59, Records of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Office Files of William P. Snow, 1956–59.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1958g. Memorandum of conversation, 30 January 1958. RG 59, Records of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Office Files of William P. Snow, 1956–59.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1959a. US Delegation to Antarctic Conference (Phleger), memorandum for Deputy Undersecretary of State (Merchant), 17 November 1959. National Archives, RG 59, 702.022/[11–1759].Google Scholar
Department of State. 1959b. Office memorandum (Fergusson), 24 November 1959. National Archives, RG 59, 399.829/11–2459.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1959c. Bureau of European Affairs (Kohler) to Office of Deputy Undersecretary of State (Daniels), 21 April 1959. National Archives, RG 59, 399.829/4–2159.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1959d. Embassy in Buenos Aires to Department of State, 3 November 1959. National Archives, RG 59, 399.829/11–359.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1959e. Office of Inter-American Regional Political Affairs (Luboeansky) and others, memorandum of conversation, 20 March 1959. National Archives, RG 59, 399.829/3–2059.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1959f. Office memorandum (Fergusson), 24 November 1959. National Archives, RG 59, 399.829/11–2459.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1960a. Documents on disarmament 1945–1959, vol. 1: 19451956. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1960b. The Conference on Antarctica, Washington, October 15–December 1, 1959: conference documents, the Antarctic Treaty and related papers. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1969. Foreign relations of the United States 1946, vol. 6: Eastern Europe; the Soviet Union. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1972. Foreign relations of the United States 1946, vol. 1: general. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1973. Foreign relations of the United States 1947, vol. 1: general. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1976a. Foreign relations of the United States 1948, vol. 1, part 2: general. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1976b. Foreign relations of the United States 1949, vol. 1: national security affairs. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1984. Foreign relations of the United States 1952–1954, vol. 2, part 2: national security affairs. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Department of State. 1990. Foreign relations of the United States 1955–1957, vol. 20: regulation of armaments; atomic energy. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Divine, R.A. 1978. Blowing on the wind: the nuclear test ban debate, 1954–1960. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dodds, K.J. 1994. Geopolitics in the Foreign Office: British representatives of Argentina 1945–1961. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19 (3): 273290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, K.J. 1996. To photograph the Antarctic: British polar exploration and the Falkland Islands and Dependencies Aerial Survey Expedition (FIDASE). Ecumene 3 (1): 6389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, K.J. 2002a. Pink Ice: Britain and the South Atlantic empire. London: I.B. Taurus.Google Scholar
Dodds, K.J. 2002b. Screening Antarctica: Britain, the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, and Scott of the Antarctic (1948). Polar Record, 38 (204): 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreign Office. 1953a. Embassy in Santiago (Stirling) to Foreign Office, 24 February 1953. National Archives, FO 371/103353/A15212/110.Google Scholar
Foreign Office. 1953b. Foreign Office to Embassy in Santiago, 26 February 1953. National Archives, FO 371/103353/[A15212/110].Google Scholar
Foreign Office. 1958a. Foreign Office (Hankey) to Colonial Office (Rogers). 16 June 1958. National Archives, FO 371/131909/AS15214/135.Google Scholar
Foreign Office. 1958b. Colonial Office (Rogers) to Foreign Office (Hankey), 18 June 1958. National Archives, FO 371/131909/A15214/135A.Google Scholar
Foreign Office. 1959a. Embassy in Washington (Caccia) to Foreign Office, 17 November 1959. National Archives, FO 371/138976/A15214/325.Google Scholar
Foreign Office. 1959b. Embassy in Washington (Caccia) to Foreign Office, 18 November 1959. National Archives, FO 371/138976/A15214/326.Google Scholar
Foreign Office. 1959c. Foreign Office to Embassy in Washington, 12 September 1958. National Archives, FO 371/131929/A15228/9.Google Scholar
Gaddis, J.L. 2002. The landscape of history: how historians map the past. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gellhorn, W. 1950. Security, loyalty and science. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Goebel, J. 1982. The struggle for the Falkland Islands. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. 1998. What did Truman know, and when did he know it? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 54 (3): 1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowing, G. 1974. Interdependence and deterrence: Britain and atomic energy 1945–1952. London: The Macmillan Press, Ltd.Google Scholar
Graybar, L.J. 1986. The 1946 atomic bomb tests: atomic diplomacy or bureaucratic infighting. Journal of American History 72 (4): 888907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, R.L. 2001. Radioactivity and right: clashes at Bikini Atoll. American Journal of Public Heath 91 (9): 13711376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, H.R. 1989. The ‘open door’ in Antarctica: an explanation of the Hughes Doctrine. Polar Record 25 (153): 137140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. 1946. The US plan for control of atomic energy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2 (5–6): 1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, T.R. 1950. The white continent: the story of Antarctica. New York: William Sloane Associates.Google Scholar
Herkin, G. 1980. The winning weapon: the atomic bomb in the Cold War, 1945–1950. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Hewlett, R.G., and Holl, J.M.. 1989. Atoms for peace and war, 1953–1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Higgenbotham, W.A. 1948. The Federation of American Scientists. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 4 (1): 2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hounshell, D.A. 2001. Rethinking the cold war; rethinking science and technology in the cold war; rethinking the social study of science and technology. Social Studies of Science 31 (2): 289297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, C.E.W. 1951. The Antarctic problem: an historical and political study. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.Google Scholar
Joseph, P. 2000. Forgetting and remembering Hiroshima in the US. Policy Review 12 (2): 291297.Google Scholar
Joyner, C.C., and Theis, E.,1997. Eagle over the ice: the US in the Antarctic. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Jungk, R. 1956. Brighter than a thousand suns: a personal history of the atomic scientists. (Translator James Cleugh) London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Killian, J.R.Jr. 1959. Science and public policy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 15 (4): 168172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissinger, H.A. 1956. Reflections on American diplomacy. Foreign Affairs 35 (1): 3756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissinger, H.A. 1958. Nuclear testing and the problem of peace. Foreign Affairs 37 (1): 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotz, F.G. 1990. America on ice: Antarctic policy issues. Washington: National Defense University Press.Google Scholar
Lapp, R.E. 1955. Fallout and candor. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11 (5): 170, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, R.S., and Smith, P.M. (editors). 1973. Frozen future: a prophetic report from Antarctica. New York: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
Lieberman, J.E. 1970. The scorpion and the tarantula: the struggle to control atomic weapons, 1945–1949. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Major, J. 1971. The Oppenheimer hearing. New York: Stein and Day Publishers.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, M. 1981. The nuclear revolution: international politics before and after Hiroshima. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miscamble, W.D. 1992. George F. Kennan and the making of American foreign policy, 1947–1950. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B., and Kimball, L.. 1979. Conflict over the cold continent. Foreign Policy 35: 124141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J.K. 1999. Tethered to an iceberg: United States policy toward the Antarctic, 1939–1949. Polar Record 35 (193): 125134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J.K. 2001. A ‘sort’ of self-denial: United States policy toward the Antarctic, 1950–1959. Polar Record 37 (200): 1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J.K. 2003. Thirty-seven degrees frigid: US–Chilean relations and the spectre of polar arrivistes, 1950–1959. Diplomacy and Statecraft 14 (4): 6993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J.K.20032004. The constructive limits of Antarctic history, Yankee imperialism and Chilean–Australian relations through 1959. Revista de Historia 1314: 173–78.Google Scholar
Moore, J.K. 2004. Bungled publicity: Little America, big America and the rationale for non-claimancy, 1946–1961. Polar Record 40 (212): 1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negroponte, J.D. 1987. The success of the Antarctic Treaty. Department of State Bulletin 87: 2123.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, J.R.,1949. A letter to Senator McMahon. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 5 (6–7): 163, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, K.A. 2002. Hearts and minds: the unconventional cold war. Journal of Cold War Studies 4 (2): 85107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrish, M.E. 1977. Cold War justice: the Supreme Court and the Rosenbergs. American Historical Review 82 (4): 805842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powaski, R.E. 1987. March to Armageddon: the United States and the nuclear arms race, 1939 to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Powaski, R.E. 1998. The cold war: the United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pringle, P., and Spigelman, J.. 1981. The nuclear barons. London: Michael Joseph.Google Scholar
Quigg, P.W. 1983. A pole apart: the emerging issue of Antarctica. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Rabinowitch, E. 1949. The ‘cleansing’ of AEC fellowships. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 5 (6–7): 161162.Google Scholar
Rabinowitch, E. 1957. About disarmament. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 13 (8): 277282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C.M. 1970. The nuclear years: the arms race and arms control, 1945–70. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. 1954. More than security. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 10 (7): 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrecker, E.W. 1986. No ivory tower: McCarthyism and the universities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapley, D. 1985. The seventh continent: Antarctica in a resource age. Washington: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Sherwin, M.J. 1995. Hiroshima as politics and history. Journal of American History 82 (3): 10851093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, M.J. 2003. A world destroyed: Hiroshima and its legacies. Stanford: Stanford University Press (3rd edition).Google Scholar
Smith, A.K. 1965. A peril and a hope: the scientists’ movement in America, 1945–47. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sollie, F. 1973. The political experiment in Antarctica. In: Lewis, R.S., and Smith, P.M. (editors). Frozen future: a prophetic report from Antarctica. New York: Quadrangle Books: 4663.Google Scholar
Solovey, M. 2001. Science and the state during the cold war: blurred boundaries and a contested legacy. Social Studies of Science 31 (2): 165170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P.M. 1969. The Oppenheimer case: security on trial. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.Google Scholar
Sullivan, W. 1954. Into the unknown white continent. The New YorkTimes Magazine 26 October 1954: 1011, 34.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. 1988. Against the bomb: the British peace movement, 1958–1965. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Teller, E., and Brown, A.. 1962. The legacy of Hiroshima. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Toma, P.A. 1956. Soviet attitude towards the acquisition of territorial sovereignty in the Antarctic. The American Journal of International Law 50 (3): 611626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truman, H.S. 1955. Memoirs, vol. 1: year of decisions 1945. London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited.Google Scholar
Navy, US. 1946. Office of Naval Research (Bowen) to Chief of Naval Operations, 8 October 1946. National Archives, RG 313, Reference Files 1946–1947.Google Scholar
Navy, US. 1947a. Intelligence Report by Military Attache in Praha, Czechoslovakia, 17 February 1947. National Archives, RG 313, Reference Files 1946–1947.Google Scholar
Navy, US. 1947b. Commander of Task Force 68 (Cruzen) to Chief of Naval Operations, 10 June 1947 National Archives, RG 313, Commander of Task Force 68.Google Scholar
Navy, US. 1954. Commander of Service Squadron 4, US Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia, Operation Order 1–55, 12 November 1954. National Archives, RG 313, Reports Relating to USS Atka Antarctic Expedition 1954–1955.Google Scholar
Wang, J. 1999. American science in an age of anxiety: scientists, anticommunism and the cold war. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Weart, S.R. 1988. Nuclear fear: a history of images. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weisgall, J.M. 1994. Time to end the 40-year lie. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 50 (3): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittner, L.S. 1969. Rebels against war: the American peace movement, 1941–1960. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wittner, L.S. 1993. The struggle against the bomb, vol. 1: one world or none. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittner, L.S., 1997. The struggle against the bomb, vol. 2: resisting the bomb. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wohlstetter, A. 1959. The delicate balance of terror. Foreign Affairs 37 (2): 211234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J.W. 1993. Cold war and detente 1941–91. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ziegler, C. 1988. Waiting for Joe-1: decisions leading to the detection of Russia's first atomic bomb test. Social Studies of Science 18 (2): 197229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 38 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Particular generalisation: the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 in relation to the anti-nuclear movement
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Particular generalisation: the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 in relation to the anti-nuclear movement
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Particular generalisation: the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 in relation to the anti-nuclear movement
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *