An icy reception or a warm embrace? The Antarctic Treaty System and the international law of the sea

Author(s):  
Tim Stephens
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra Mancilla

AbstractBy virtue of the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, the territorial claims to Antarctica of seven of the original signatories were held in abeyance or “frozen.” Considered by many as an exemplar of international law, the Antarctic Treaty System has come to be increasingly questioned, however, in a very much changed global scenario that presents new challenges to the governance of the White Continent. In this context, it is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of the moral weight of those initial claims, which stand (despite being frozen) as a cornerstone of the treaty. The aim of this article is to offer an appraisal of such claims, which may be divided into two main kinds: those grounded on some relevant link to the territory, and those grounded on official documents and geographical doctrines. After pointing to the limitations and challenges that they face, I conclude with some remarks about how this assessment ought to serve as a starting point to rethink the territorial status of Antarctica.


Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C. Joyner

Since the Antarctic Treaty was negotiated in 1959, it has undergone major substantive legal transformations as it grew into a multifaceted regime known as the Antarctic Treaty system. Many of those transformations stemmed from actions by the principal decision makers, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), as they adopted new strategies and values alongside binding legal agreements for managing their activities in circumpolar southern waters. This essay examines the evolution of the modern law of the sea and seeks to explain how it embellished (has it at times challenged?) the character, significance and purposes of the Antarctic Treaty.


Polar Record ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 35 (193) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley V. Scott

AbstractBy Article 2(e) of the 1951 Treaty of Peace, Japan renounced ‘all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area.’ This paper traces the process by which Australian diplomacy ensured the inclusion of such a provision in the Treaty and assesses the contemporary significance of the article. While in the unlikely event of the breakdown of the Antarctic Treaty System, Japan would be legally entitled to make a territorial claim on the basis of activities undertaken between the conclusion of the Peace Treaty and the coming into force of the Antarctic Treaty, such a claim would likely be weak. It is more probable that the Japanese government would assert that, just as Japan had had no rights to renounce in Antarctica, neither had any of the Antarctic claimants complied adequately with the provisions in international law for territorial acquisition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document