Australia's antarctic maritime claims and boundaries

Kaye, Stuart; Rothwell, Donald R.

doi:10.1080/00908329509546060

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While in no way asserting any direct correlation between the two, and noting that postcolonial literature has emanated from scholars in claimant states, it might also be noted that US scholars including Joyner (1998) have perceived Antarctica as a global commons, those such as Chaturvedi ( 2013) from non-claimant countries have criticized the colonialism embedded in the treaty, and those from claimant states such as Kaye and Rothwell (1995) have made particularly notable contributions to analyzing the detail of legal claims in Antarctica.…”

Section: Recent Scholarship On Antarctic Settlermentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Autonomy

2021

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is Nigeria's preeminent socialistfeminist novelist. Neo-colonialist Nigeria under "flag independence" has been a theater of conflict where women's rights have been suppressed as part of an imperialist ideological crusade. Okoye's oeuvre presents us with examples of how individual women, as well as radical collectives, can find agency even as exploitative structures tighten their grip on the country.

show abstract

Section: Recent Scholarship On Antarctic Settlermentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Autonomy

2021

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Recent Scholarship On Antarctic Settlermentioning

confidence: 99%

Indian Rebellion of 1857

2021

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One commentator has argued for the blanket application of the Antarctic Treaty throughout the ATA, with no distinction as to maritime claims made from north of the area (Oxman 1986: 227). However, the more widely held view is that the ATS allows sub-Antarctic islands to generate maritime zones (Kaye 2001a: 208).…”

Section: Sub-antarctic Islands and The Antarctic Treaty Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One initial issue confronting Australia in relation to the HIMI, and also Argentina and the United Kingdom in relation to the South Sandwich Islands, is how to delimit the overlap between these islands’ continental shelf and a continental shelf asserted from the Antarctic. Kaye has noted that given the potential for oil or gas resources on the Kerguelen Plateau it would be attractive to Australia to apportion the greatest possible shelf to HIMI, although this would have the ‘disadvantage of weakening Australia's Antarctic claim itself’ (Kaye 2001a, 209). The Australian government appears to have been mindful of this in its submission to the CLCS, in claiming an ECS southward from HIMI to the 200 nm line from the Antarctic continent.…”

Section: Implications For Antarctic Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

The extended continental shelves of sub-Antarctic Islands: implications for Antarctic governance

Hemmings

Stephens

2010

Polar Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers the legal and policy issues surrounding the establishment of continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from sub-Antarctic islands. Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) a coastal state may establish a continental shelf that extends seawards beyond 200 nm where the continental shelf continues, normally to a total distance of no more than 350 nm. To establish such an extended continental shelf (ECS) a coastal state must file a submission of delineation data with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a technical body established by UNCLOS.The rights of coastal states present particular difficulties in the Antarctic Treaty area (ATA), due to the general non-recognition of the seven territorial claims and the provisions of article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. Accordingly, Antarctic claimant states are generally adopting a restrained approach to the issue of ECS as appertaining to claimed territories in Antarctica in their submissions to the CLCS. These states appear to recognise that they cannot secure the normal prerogatives of a coastal state from territorial sea baselines within the ATA, at least for the duration of the present Antarctic Treaty system (ATS). A different approach is being taken with respect of sub-Antarctic islands lying north of the ATA. Sovereignty over sub-Antarctic territory north of the ATA is, with the exception of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, not contested. Accordingly, rights in relation to any continental shelf attaching to sub-Antarctic islands may be realised, apparently without challenging the Antarctic modus vivendi.However, the ECS of several sub-Antarctic islands penetrate the ATA. In 2008, the CLCS largely endorsed the 2004 Australian submission that included data on ECS from Australia's sub-Antarctic islands of Macquarie Island and the Heard and McDonald group. The ECS from both groups penetrates south of 60°S into the ATA, in the case of Heard and McDonald covering a huge area. Although the wider dispute regarding sovereignty between the United Kingdom and Argentina adds complexity to the case, the South Sandwich Islands are sufficiently close to the ATA that their continental shelf also penetrates the area. In the event that the CLCS were ever able to make a recommendation on a submission of data relating to the South Sandwich Islands (something that could only occur with the consent of Argentina and the United Kingdom) the result would be a situation similar to that pertaining to the Australian sub-Antarctic islands.The consequence of these developments is that rights to seabed areas within the ATA have been assigned to individual states. On the face of it, this appears to be in conflict with the norm of collective responsibility that was established by the Antarctic Treaty 50 years ago precisely to constrain sovereignty issues in the region. What is suggested by this practice is a difference in the attitude of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) to rights generated from territory within the ATA and rights generated from external territory. Nonetheless, there may be significant implications flowing from the latter for resource issues within the ATA. Minerals exploitation on sub-Antarctic extended continental shelf within the ATA is precluded in the near-term because of cost, the formal prohibition under article 7 of the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, and the fact that all sub-Antarctic coastal states are ATCPs. However the situation in regard to other resource activities is less clear. Bioprospecting could proceed subject to coastal state approval pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS relating to marine scientific research, and there is no mandatory regulation under the ATS. The possibility that a coastal state may seek to realise rights on the ECS in relation to genetic resources may complicate collective ATS approaches and pose wider geopolitical challenges. In the longer term, the fact that some Antarctic states are presently seeking to secure rights that are essentially about ensuring their preclusive access to resources may have significant implications for strategic interests in the greater Antarctic region.

show abstract

Australia's antarctic maritime claims and boundaries

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

Indigenous Autonomy

Indigenous Autonomy

Indian Rebellion of 1857

The extended continental shelves of sub-Antarctic Islands: implications for Antarctic governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About