Sovereignty and the Antarctic Treaty

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Rothwell
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
Crucial Component ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Antarctic

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.

Antarctica, Latin America, and the International System in the 1980s: Toward a New Antarctic Order?

1981 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos J. Moneta
Keyword(s):  
International System ◽  
Great Difficulty ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
International Geophysical ◽  
Do So

The Antarctic Treaty was signed by twelve countries in 1959. This group, together with those countries having territorial claims prior to signing the treaty—Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom—would try with great difficulty to reconcile the opposing interests of (1) countries that for decades had been actively defending their claims of sovereignty over sectors of Antarctica; (2) superpowers that, while not asserting any claims of their own—although certainly reserving the right to do so in the future—did not accept those of other countries; and (3) a number of countries that had been invited to participate in the treaty because they had been active in Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year.

scholarly journals Ziemia Eryka Rudego. Duńsko-norweski spór o terytoria na wschodzie Grenlandii

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 131-148
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Kubiak
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
World War ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Geographical Space

Eric The Red’s Land cannot be found on contemporary maps. There are not many older cartographic publications in which such an area would be marked either. They were published in only one country, Norway, and for a limited time. This was the result of the territorial claims that Norway reported to parts of eastern Greenland. To locate the area in geographical space, the name of Eric The Red’s Land was used (Norwegian: Eirik Raudes Land). Norwegian claims to East Greenland met the strong opposition of Denmark. In the interwar period, it seemed that the verdict of the Permanent International Court of Justice in The Hague, adopted in 1933 and recognizing Denmark’s sovereignty over all of Greenland, had ended the dispute. However, during World War II, Norway raised the issue of the possession of eastern Greenland again. This happened at a time when both Nordic countries were occupied by Germany. The cooperation with Germany undertaken by “Arctic expansionists” ultimately intersected with Norwegian ambitions in the eastern part of Greenland.

Common interests in the international space of Antarctica

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Arthur Berkman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
International Space ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Antarctic

The Antarctic Treaty was adopted by twelve nations in Washington, DC on 1 December 1959 with the interests of science and the progress of all mankind. Seven of these nations asserted territorial claims, including the overlapping claims of Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom in the Antarctic Peninsula. The five other nations were non-claimants, including the United States and Soviet Union (now Russian Federation), which reserved rights to press claims in the future.

New Problems—Old Solutions

1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 91-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Skagestad ◽  
Kim Traavik
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
The Novel ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Past ◽  
International Court ◽  
Solution Models ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Opening Up ◽  
General Regulation

The verdict in 1933 by the Permanent International Court of Justice in the so-called ‘Eastern Greenland Case’ brought to the fore the dilemma of adapting the traditional sovereignty concept to the novel political/legal problems characterizing the ‘new territories’. With the opening up of other ‘new territories’ for exploration and subsequent exploitation, this dilemma has grown ever more acute in recent years. This chapter highlights some general regulation problems in ‘new territories’, gives a description of attempts made to solve such problems in the past, and identifies the key elements in the various ‘solution models’ (notably the Svalbard Treaty, the Antarctic Treaty and the Continental Shelf Convention). These elements are described and analysed comparatively, with a certain emphasis on the somewhat divergent preconditions prevalent in the three separate examples. In the final section, the authors proceed to discuss the applicability of the old solution models to the present and emerging regulation problems in the new territories.

scholarly journals Criminal Proceedings Against Albers

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-638
Author(s):  
Filippo Fontanelli
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In August 2012, the First Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court or Court), the highest Italian domestic court, issued a judgment upholding Germany’s sovereign immunity from civil claims brought by Italian war crime victims against Paul Albers and eight others in the Italian courts (Albers). In so doing, the Court overruled its own earlier decisions and also reversed the judgment of April 20, 2011, by the Italian Military Court of Appeal (Military Court), which had upheld such claims relating to war crimes committed by German forces in Italy during World War II. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation put an end to its decade long effort to find an exception to the well-known rule of customary international law providing for sovereign immunity from foreign civil jurisdiction for actsjure imperii. Thisrevirementresulted from the Court’s decision to give effect to the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) inGermany v. Italy.

scholarly journals The Illusion of Perfect Justice

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-70
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
German Occupation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Right ◽  
Italian Constitution

AbstractThe judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) of 22 October 2014 has set a bad precedent for international law by denying the implementation, within Italy, of the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 3 February 2012. The ICJ found that Italian courts and tribunals had violated German jurisdictional immunity by entertaining suits brought by Italian citizens against Germany on account of damages caused by war crimes committed during World War II by German occupation forces. According to a well-consolidated rule of general international law, no state may be sued before the courts of another state with regard to acts performed in the exercise of its sovereign power. In contravention of Article 94 of the UN Charter, the ItCC deemed it legitimate to discard that ruling because of the particularly grave character of many of the violations in question. It proceeded from the assumption that the right to a remedy established under the Italian Constitution was absolute and must apply even where the financial settlement of the consequences of armed conflict is at issue. However, it has failed to show the existence of any individual reparation claims and has omitted to assess the issue of war reparations owed by Germany in their broader complexity. The judgment of the ItCC might be used in the future as a pretext to ignore decisions of the World Court.

scholarly journals Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Franziska Liebelt
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
The Antarctic

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

A Bibliographic Review: Studies of Libya's International Borders

1996 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Ciarli ◽  
Keith McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Land Claims ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Boundary ◽  
Select Bibliography ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
International Boundaries

AbstractThe Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has, since 1980, been involved in no fewer than three important judgments at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, dealing with Libya-Tunisia, the Libya-Malta and the Libya-Chad boundaries. The Government of Libya accepted all the judgments made at the ICJ without equivocation.The settlement of the Mediterranean continental shelf issues with Tunisia (1982) and with Malta (1985) may be seen as technical adjustments leading to a fixing of boundaries in undemarcated areas. Both judgments were comparatively favourable to Libya and extended Libya's area of hydrocarbon activities off-shore.In the matter of Libyan land claims to the Aouzou strip on the Chad borderlands, the situation was rather different. The international boundary between Libya and Chad was laid down under a 1955 convention. In 1972 the Libyan Government annexed the Aouzou strip. The ICJ gave its judgment on 3rd February 1994, by 16 votes to 1 finding that the boundary between the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Chad is defined by the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness concluded on 10th August 1955 between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Libya, thus restoring the Aouzou strip to Chad.A select bibliography of sources dealing with Libya's international boundaries is attached, itemising key texts in Western languages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document