Preview: Chapter 9 of Territorial Disputes in the Americas
Territorial Disputes in the Americas (released August 20, 2025) unravels the continent’s intricate territorial conflicts. Chapter 9, “Territorial Claims over Antarctica,” examines Antarctica’s unique sovereignty disputes, involving Latin American states and global powers, and proposes pathways for resolution. As part of my 10-week chapter reveal series, this preview, grounded in my work, highlights the chapter’s key ideas. Explore how Argentina, Chile, and others navigate Antarctica’s “frozen” sovereignty and join the conversation on peacebuilding!
Antarctica’s Complex Claims
Antarctica’s significance spans scientific, environmental, and geopolitical realms, attracting diverse agents—states, researchers, and organizations. Unlike disputes in Chapters 7–8, Antarctica’s sovereignty is legally “frozen” under the Antarctic Treaty (1959), leaving claims unresolved. Seven states—Argentina, Chile, Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK—assert territorial rights based on discovery, occupation, or proximity, with Argentina and Chile’s claims overlapping with the UK’s. Other powers (e.g., US, Russia, China) maintain research facilities, while Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, and Ecuador reserve future claims. The chapter uses a multidimensional approach, integrating agents (states, communities), players (hosts, participants), contexts (domestic, regional, international), realms (factual, normative, axiological), and modes of existence (ideal, natural, cultural, metaphysical) to analyze this complex dispute.
Historical and Current Claims
Latin American Claims
Argentina and Chile, key Latin American claimants, base their rights on historical exploration, *uti possidetis juris*, and geographic proximity. Argentina’s claims, tied to its national narrative since the 1890s, include the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, linking Antarctic disputes to broader sovereignty issues. Chile’s 1940 decree defined its Antarctic sector, rejecting UK claims. Both nations faced tensions with the UK’s 1908–1917 Letters Patent, which ambiguously claimed Antarctic territories as Falkland dependencies. Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, and Ecuador, as ATS members, pursue scientific and strategic interests, with Brazil’s PROANTAR and Ecuador’s PROANTEC emphasizing regional influence. Latin America’s shared colonial history and democratic regimes could enable a unified bloc to counter external powers like the UK or China.
Central Powers
The UK, a colonial claimant, mutually recognizes claims with Australia, France, New Zealand, and Norway, but not Argentina or Chile. The US, with no formal claim, reserves future rights and prioritizes strategic interests, opposing internationalization. Russia’s growing securitization and China’s expanding presence (since joining the ATS in 1983) focus on resource access and scientific research. India, a non-claimant, supports scientific cooperation but may shift based on national interests. Realpolitik reveals unequal bargaining power despite legal sovereign equality (UN Charter, Art. 2.1).
The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS)
Signed in 1959 and effective since 1961, the ATS prioritizes peaceful use, scientific cooperation, and demilitarization (Arts. I–III). Article IV “freezes” sovereignty claims, preserving pre-Treaty rights without recognizing or denying them, sidestepping conflicts. The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, reinforcing non-militarization and environmental principles (Arts. 2–4). The ATS includes annual Consultative Meetings (ATCM), the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), and bodies like the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). While effective in maintaining peace, the ATS postpones sovereignty resolution, creating a legal limbo that benefits resource-capable states.
Multidimensional Guidelines for Resolution
Chapter 9 applies Núñez’s (2020) guidelines, refined through a multidimensional approach (Núñez, 2023), assuming equal negotiators in a hypothetical, bias-free setting (Núñez, 2017):
1. Sovereign Equality: Despite realpolitik disparities, legal equality (UN Charter, Art. 2.1) must guide negotiations.
2. Shared Sovereignty: “Egalitarian shared sovereignty” ensures all claimants share rights and obligations equitably, respecting non-intervention.
3. No Exclusive Claims: Claiming sole sovereignty over Antarctica, lacking indigenous populations or permanent settlements, is legally and morally untenable.
4. Mutual Benefit: Agreements must benefit all parties, recognizing claims partially to avoid domination.
5. Avoiding Status Quo: Perpetuating the sovereignty freeze favors powerful states, risking volatility.
6. Non-Domination: Decisions must ensure equal input, preventing arbitrary power (e.g., by stronger states).
7. UN Independence: Arrangements should avoid UN biases (e.g., Security Council vetoes) to neutralize self-interest.
This approach, incorporating factual (e.g., resources), normative (e.g., ATS), axiological (e.g., fairness), and metaphysical (e.g., global common good) realms, proposes a cooperative model where Latin America could lead as a unified bloc, countering external domination.
Toward a Peaceful Future
Chapter 9 underscores Antarctica’s unresolved sovereignty, sidestepped by the ATS. A multidimensional approach, prioritizing shared sovereignty and non-domination, offers a path to permanent peace. The next chapter will synthesize the monograph’s findings and propose future research directions.
Get a Sneak Peek
Dive deeper at https://drjorge.world with posts like “Antarctica’s Frozen Sovereignty” and “Latin America’s Role.” Follow my weekly reveals on X (#TerritorialDisputes) and share your thoughts! Pre-order details coming soon!
NOTE:
New posts every Thursday.
NEXT POST:
Preview Chapter 10: Conclusive Remarks, Limitations, and Future Implications– Offers research and policy guidelines for broader applications.
No comments:
Post a Comment