Sovereignty and the Antarctic Treaty

Abstract

Sovereignty was and still remains one of the principal reasons for human endeavour in Antarctica. The ‘Heroic Era’ of Antarctic exploration was designed principally to seek out not only new lands including the South Pole, but also to assert territorial claims on behalf of the sovereign who sponsored these expeditions. The ‘planting of the flag’ was therefore just as much a crucial component of Antarctic discovery, as also was the conduct of science. Sovereignty and science remained twin pillars of Antarctic endeavour throughout the early part of the twentieth century, and whilst the region escaped the horrors of World War II, it did not take long after the war for Antarctic endeavours to resume on both fronts. In a decade of frantic diplomatic activity during the 1950s, which was highlighted by the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year and the 1959 Washington Conference, there was also the prospect in 1956 of a case before the International Court of Justice between Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom over the contested status of territorial claims on the Antarctic Peninsula. Notwithstanding that by this time all of the current claims to the continent had by then been asserted, there had also been moves made by India in 1956 and then again in 1958 to reconsider the management of the continent with a view to its internationalisation under a framework created by the United Nations General Assembly.

A roadmap for Antarctic and Southern Ocean science for the next two decades and beyond

“…While many states have yet to accede to the Antarctic Treaty and its conservation measures and conventions, national interest in establishing or expanding operations in Antarctica signal changing priorities and motivations for a presence in the region (Q.76) (Brady 2012). The Antarctic governance regime is being tested by these pressures as it manages progressively more intractable environmental concerns within a changing Antarctic security and geopolitical framework (Q.76) (Hemmings 2009, Dodds 2010, Rothwell 2010, Joyner 2011, Chown et al 2012b, Foster 2013, Hemmings et al 2013).…”

Anthropogenic impacts on marine ecosystems in Antarctica

“…The greatest flaw in the Treaty System is its tolerance of the territorial claims in abeyance that are maintained by several States Parties, some of which have taken the precaution of including in their claims areas adjacent to the Treaty area, north of 60°S 128,135 . This strategic positioning for claims on Antarctic territory may not have been cause for concern when the Treaty entered into force in 1961; however, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has recently set the stage for asserting rights over areas of seafloor that are natural extensions of a states’ territory.…”

“…Such exchange should take place in deep water at the Polar Front to prevent coastal waters from outside the Treaty area from being carried to Antarctica. 134 The greatest flaw in the Treaty System is its tolerance of the territorial claims in abeyance that are maintained by several States Parties, some of which have taken the precaution of including in their claims areas adjacent to the Treaty area, north of 60 • S. 128,135 This strategic positioning for claims on Antarctic territory may not have been cause for concern when the Treaty entered into force in 1961; however, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has recently set the stage for asserting rights over areas of seafloor that are natural extensions of a states' territory. The recent rush for undersea real estate in the Arctic (see section "Mineral extraction") raises concerns about the prospects for continued cooperation in Antarctica.…”

Antarctic Futures

“…Sovereignty has always been one of the principal reasons for nations to engage in Antarctica (Rothwell 2010). Sovereignty issues are linked to geopolitical positions and national prestige on the international political stage.…”