Rising powers and Antarctica: Brazil’s changing interests

Abdenur, Adriana Erthal; Marcondes, Danilo

doi:10.1080/2154896x.2014.913910

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This contention was countered by Consultative Parties' claims about the AT's historical success in maintaining peace and effecting sustainable governance over Antarctica. For example, Australia, representing the Consultative Parties, claimed that '[t]he [Antarctic] Treaty serves the interna- 42 Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 'The Antarctic Treaty System', brochure, January 2019. 43 Ferrada, 2018, p. 90.…”

Section: The Antarctic Treaty System and The United Nationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antarctica at Risk: Geostrategic Manoeuvring and the Future of the Antarctic Treaty System

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The RAND Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd is RAND's subsidiary that does work for Australian clients on defence, national security, health, education, sustainability, growth, and development. To learn more about RAND Australia, visit www.rand.org/australia. Research IntegrityOur mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behaviour. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conf licts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

show abstract

Section: The Antarctic Treaty System and The United Nationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antarctica at Risk: Geostrategic Manoeuvring and the Future of the Antarctic Treaty System

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within this literature, the majority of these studies have examined Antarctic research bases via a geopolitical lens (e.g. Abdenur & Marcondes Neto, 2014;Sanchez & Tielemans Jr, 2015;Turchetti et al, 2008). A small number of studies have examined the sociocultural aspects of Antarctic research bases via the meanings, representations or imaginaries they produce and reflect.…”

Section: Naming In the Antarcticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toponyms on the ice: The symbolic and iconographical role of Antarctic research base names

Lindsay

Yoon

2021

Polar Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Place names serve a symbolic function in enforcing colonial power over landscapes. Within colonial locales, place names reproduce and reflect the ideological goals of settlers to reinforce or claim space for an individual, group or nation. One toponymically understudied colonial region where place names play a prominent role is the Antarctic, where the names of research bases promote the cultural power of settler nations to symbolically claim the continental landscape. As Antarctica is a geopolitically contested space, Antarctic research base names serve as an ideological purpose in reinforcing claims to the Antarctic, contrasting the ostensibly scientific purpose of research bases. This paper examines Antarctic research base names by categorising and interpreting their naming sources through a critical toponymic lens. This paper discusses general Antarctic naming trends and establishes possible reasons and outcomes of their employment, using three primary arguments: (1) Antarctic research base names are often nationalistic and reflect the implicit geopolitical goals of settler nations, (2) Antarctic research base names reflect and reproduce ongoing polar colonialism and (3) contestation over the naming of Antarctic research bases exemplifies the iconographical and cultural conflict between Antarctic nations. This paper seeks to provoke a future toponymic investigation into Antarctica and study Antarctic cultural landscapes more generally.

show abstract

“…The ongoing success of the Antarctic Treaty's prohibition of nuclear weapons within the ATA is a notable achievement as the world's first nuclear weapons treaty (Nyman 2017;Abdenur and Marcondes 2014). The non-militarisation of Antarctica, including from nuclear weapons, has also performed a strategic role outside of Antarctica, in providing certainty and an initial southern example for other regional, nuclear weapon-free agreements (Herr et al 1990).…”

Section: Strategic Driving Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antarctic Geopolitics: Background

McGee

Edmiston

Haward

2021

The Future of Antarctica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are largely absent from the leading early works of classical geopolitics. While more recent works have embraced the southern hemisphere, their gaze rarely ventures toward the frozen south. We believe the time is ripe for classical analysis to be re-enlivened in Antarctic geopolitics, and in scenario analysis. In this chapter, we survey some of the key driving forces of Antarctic geopolitics, through a classical lens and across nine themes. From this snapshot, we observe that geopolitical driving forces tend to differ according to whether they are predetermined elements or critical uncertainties; whether they impel events or trends forward or constrain them; whether they instigate rivalry or promote cooperation; and whether they are endogenous or exogenous to the field in question. We suggest that unpacking our driving forces in this way provides us with a more nuanced understanding of how these factors are likely to behave within a scenario. KeywordsAntarctic geopolitics • Disciplines of geopolitics • Driving forces of geopolitics • Driving forces of Antarctic geopolitics • Dynamic signature of driving forces • Scenario planning challenges OverviewIn this chapter, we shift our focus away from scenario approaches and toward the factors likely to drive and shape future state activity in Antarctica. As we saw in Chap. 4, these driving forces are the core elements that move scenario narratives forward, and influence how we formulate and handle geopolitical issues within them. If we are to understand how driving forces work within a scenario narrative, we need to grasp their origins and dynamics. In this chapter, we will consider both. If our scenarios are to be plausible, rigorous, and robust, then our list of driving forces needs to be comprehensive and prioritised strategically, with key causal relationships between them identified. To be comprehensive, we propose that it helps to look at our subject matter through the lenses of nine themes:

show abstract

Rising powers and Antarctica: Brazil’s changing interests

Cited by 9 publications

References 3 publications

Antarctica at Risk: Geostrategic Manoeuvring and the Future of the Antarctic Treaty System

Antarctica at Risk: Geostrategic Manoeuvring and the Future of the Antarctic Treaty System

Toponyms on the ice: The symbolic and iconographical role of Antarctic research base names

Antarctic Geopolitics: Background

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About