.%20Antarctica.jpg)
Antarctica
Unquestionably, Antarctica is important for many reasons to many different agents including but not limited to sovereign states. For instance, scientific researchers highlight its role as part of the Earth’s climate system, as an open laboratory with actual and potential benefit to mankind and as an environment for wildlife. Several central, strong or advantaged and non-central, weak or disadvantaged states consider Antarctica as part of their geopolitical strategies. Clearly, law and politics are intertwined.
The Antarctic Treaty[1] mostly refers to scientific exploration of Antarctica and, therefore, in terms of sovereignty the legal situation is a status quo ante.Whether it is futile or not to refer to the question about sovereign rights in Antarctica in light of the Antarctic Treaty, it is still a fact there are several agents involved directly and indirectly in the area with different interests including: seven states with territorial claims¾i.e. Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom; central, strong or advantaged agents such as the Russian Federation and the United States with research facilities in the area; and many more agents like Brazil, China, India, and other Indian Ocean states.
As stated in Núñez 2020, Antarctica, as a territorial dispute, encompasses several unique issues: legally, sovereignty is frozen; there is no indigenous or permanent population living in the area; it is a demilitarized zone; there are several original claimants and even more interested post-Treaty interested parties; the territory including land, water and the exclusive economic zone; natural resources; and many others. Such a complex situation in law and fact requires a multidisciplinary vision if the different governments representing each claiming and interested agent actually give priority to the common global interest of humankind as a whole.
.%20Antarctica.jpg)
Territorial claims over Antarctica
There are seven states claiming territorial sovereignty over Antarctica. Linked to colonial, imperialistic practices or not, these claims precede the ATS and are by the United Kingdom (1908), New Zealand (1923), France (1924), Argentina (1890s), Australia (1933), Norway (1939) and Chile (1890s). The bases for these claims include discovery, effective occupation and geographical proximity. Arguably, when considering realpolitik, there seems to be a different standing between central and noncentral states on the issue pertaining the mutual recognition of territorial claims over Antarctica—i.e. only Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom mutually recognize the claims of the others.
Latin America and Antarctica
Eleven of the twenty Latin American states are part of at least one of the ATS legal instruments. Neighboring the South American cluster, Antarctica presents several continental agents with claims. These claims can be broadly classified into two groups: a) those based on connection grounds such as first exploration and discovery (Argentina and Chile), scientific explorations and expeditions, exploitation of natural resources and state activity; and b) those based on official documents and geographical doctrines like the uti possidetis juris principle, transfer of territory, geographic continuity and contiguity and the sector principle.
Central, strong or advantaged states and Antarctica
United States’ territorial ambition over Antarctica have been present for decades. Technically, the United States has no territorial claim to Antarctica, does not recognize the territorial claims made by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom and maintains the right to make future claims. For several reasons including geostrategic location and natural resources, the importance of an American Antarctic is unquestionable to the northern state. Therein, their position related to the sovereignty freeze can be explained when the situation is assessed multidimensionally.
.%20Antarctica.jpg)
Multidimensionality and Antarctica
By accepting the intricacy Antarctica presents, it is possible to argue that a unidimensional approach—e.g. only legal, only political, only focused on past or current issues—will not help attain a fair arrangement for the whole of mankind. Brevitatis causa, while unidimensional approaches seek to explore and understand a fragment of the object or subject of study in question—here, Antarctica and relevant guidelines—and the way a scholarly discipline conceives it, the author’s proposed multidimensional approach is more interested in the object or subject of study itself, its elements, features and interrelations within and without.[2]
Núñez 2020[3] suggested some basic guidelines for a permanent and peaceful understanding in Antarctica. Considering the ideal circumstances designed in Núñez 2017,[4] and the many dispute settlement procedures and remedies previously reviewed and assessed by the author, it is possible to explore now these basic guidelines for a permanent and peaceful understanding in Antarctica in more detail. Therein, Núñez 2025/26 will address these guidelines individually.
NOTE:
This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. This is the final post, at least for now, pertaining to this series. Keep tuned because a monograph is coming!
PREVIOUS POST:
NEXT POST:
This is the final post, at least for now, pertaining to this series. Keep tuned because a monograph is coming!
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Friday 28th February 2025
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
[1] For a complete version of the Antarctic Treaty see http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf accessed 17 February 2025. For the official Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty website see https://www.ats.aq/e/antarctictreaty.html accessed 17 February 2025.
[2] For details about dimensional understanding including uni- and multidimenstionality see Jorge E. Núñez, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty, International Law and Politics: A Theory (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023).
[3] Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 6.
[4] Jorge E. Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), Chapter 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment