¹ Division of the Antarctic into segments is frequent. See Alberto Luis Quaranta, El Sexto Continents, Apuntes Para El Estudio de la Antártida Argentina 39–42 (Buenos Aires, 1950, possibly the best Argentine monograph), where four equal quadrants (West 0°–90°, 90°–180°; East 0°–90° and 90°–180°) are named “South American,” “Pacific,” “African,” and “Australian” respectively.

² Those not familiar with recent trends in the Antarctic may wish to consult the article by Heron, D. W., “Antarctic Claims,” 32 Foreign Affairs 661–667 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially the chart on p. 662; Dodson, B. H. T., “Antarctica,” 6 Focus No. 5 (1956)Google Scholar, especially the map of International Geophysical Year Stations. For extended study see United States Navy Department, Antarctic Bibliography (1951, 147 pp.); Hans-Peter Kosack, Die Antarktis, Eine Länderkunde (Heidelberg, 1955, 310 pp.) (hereinafter cited as Kosack) ; also his “I. Bibliografía Antártica” published with a supplement (“II. Otros libros y publicaciones sobre la Antártica,” by Pablo Dil C.) in Revista Geográfica de Chile, No. 13 (May, 1955), pp. 125–137; T. B. White, The White Continent 246–257 (1950, “Who Owns the Antarctic !”); “Declarations Concerning Antarctic Territories,” in U. S. Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1948–49 (1950), pp. 217–245. A very recent and excellent bibliography of the political and legal literature (including the U.N. documents) is that prepared by A. B. Roberts and his Reference Section staff at the U.N. Library (Antarctica, A Selected Bibliography, 1956, 22 pp., hectograph).

³ Norway's claim (45° East Long, to 20° West Long.) is partially in the “American” quadrant, but this portion (except for general U. S. reservations) is not presently disputed with any other Power. The former German claim (a truncated sector within the actual Norwegian claim, from 17° East Long, to 5° West Long.) is no longer considered active. See Lawrence Martin's essay, “The Antarctic Sphere of Interest,” in H. W. Weigert et al. (eds.), New Compass of the “World 61–79 (1949).

⁴ See 1 Hackworth's Digest of International Law 449–465 (1940); Dean Acheson, “Clarification of U. S. Position on Antarctic Claims,” Dept. of State Bulletin, Jan. 5, 1947, p. 30; Kosack 127, 142–144. The text of the Dec. 28, 1946, note to the Chilean Government by Under Secretary of State Acheson is in Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Política International de Chile 21 (1947) (hereinafter cited as Chile, Política Int.).

⁵ Reeves, J. S., “Antarctic Sectors,” 33 A.J.I.L. 519–521 (1939)Google Scholar. This position is a continuation of the stand taken by Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes that mere discovery, not followed up promptly by effective occupation, eould not establish sovereignty and that in polar regions where “actual settlement would be an impossibility,” such discovery “would afford frail support” for a claim to sovereignty. U. S. Foreign Relations, 1924, Vol. 2, pp. 519–520. Without official approval, however, a number of atlases credit the United States with a sector (e.g., the Rand McNally map in Collier's World Atlas and Gazetteer (1941, p. 9), and a U. S. Air Force map with U. S. sectors marked is on file in the Chilean Foreign Office.

⁶ In August, 1948, the United States approached (without much favorable result) Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina along this line. 19 Dept. of State Bulletin 301 (1948); Documents on American Foreign Relations, Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 1948, Vol. 10, p. 544; P. B. Corbett, Law and Society in the Relations of States 118–119 (1951). For the reactions of Argentina and the U.S.S.E., see Quaranta, op. cit. 87–88, and U.S.S.E. Information Bulletin, June 23, 1950, p. 380.

⁷ Bounded by the 50th Parallel in the part between 20° and 50°; by the 58th Parallel from 50° to 80°. This “notch” or indentation was installed in 1917 after the original Letters Patent of 1908, which fixed the base simply at the 50th Parallel, appeared to include a substantial portion of Chile and Argentina proper. British Letters Patent, July 21, 1908, 101 Brit, and For. State Papers 76–77 (1912); British Letters Patent, March 28, 1917, 111 ibid. 16–17 (1921). See also the British Letters Patent of June 23, 1843; April 28, 1876; Feb. 25, 1892; and Dec. 13, 1948 (the latter in 150 Brit, and For. State Papers 608–613 (Pt. I, 1956), pertaining to the governance of the Falkland Islands in general.

⁸ See especially the able and generally restrained analysis of these claims in the article by C. H. M. Waldock, “Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies,” 25 Brit. Year Book of Int. Law 321–353 (1948) ; also British Information Services (Ref. Div.), Britain and the Antarctic (New York, 1953 Rev., mimeo) ; Brown, E. N. E., “Political Claims in the Antarctic,” 1 World Affairs 393–401 (1947)Google Scholar; Calvocoressi, P. and Harden, S., “The Antarctic,” Survey of International Affairs 1947–1948, pp. 492–499 (London, 1952)Google Scholar; Christie, E. W. H., The Antarctic Problem, An Historical and Political Study (London, 1951, 336 pp.)Google Scholar; Daniel, J., “Conflict of Sovereignties in the Antarctic,” Year Book of World Affairs (London, 1949), pp. 241–272 Google Scholar.

⁹ Charles V in 1539 allegedly granted Pedro Sanchez de Hoz the territory “from the Strait [of Magellan] to the Pole inclusive” west of 40° West Long. The grant devolved on Pedro de Valdivia and at length came under the Captaincy-General of Chile. In 1778 and again in 1786 Spain decreed whaling to be reserved in the Antarctic Ocean to Spaniards. Bernardo O'Higgins wrote in 1831 that Chile extends down to New South Shetland and possesses the key to the Atlantic from 30 degrees South Latitude down to the Antarctic Pole and to all the Great Pacific. Kosack 126; Pinochet 45–57, 65; Carlos Aramayo Alzérreca, Historia de la Antártida 162 (Buenos Aires, 1949).

¹⁰ For affirmation of this position see Chile's reservation to the Pinal Act, Second Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers at Havana (1940), and to the Rio Treaty (1947). See Pinochet de la Barra, op. cit. 63–67 (Ch. IV, “The ‘Uti Possidetis’ of 1810 and the Antarctic Rights of the Republic”).

¹¹ The most important single work (including a substantial bibliography) is by Oscar Pinochet de la Barra, cited above (Santiago, 1948, 180 pp., the edition hereinafter cited as Pinochet, and 3d ed., 1955, 226 pp.). A translation of two recent lectures by Pinochet de la Barra appeared under the title, “Chilean Sovereignty in Antarctica” (Santiago, 1955, 59 pp.), which is the only Chilean statement in English. Among titles not cited elsewhere are: Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Derechos Indiscutibles de Chile Sobre la Antartica Chilena,” Revista Geográfiea de Chile, No. 1 (September, 1948), pp. 155–164; Antonio Huneeus Gana, Antártida (Santiago, 1948, 47 pp.); Ihl Cléricus, P., “Delimitación Natural entre el Océano Pacífieo y Atlántico, en resguardo de nuestra soberanía sobre la Antártica y Navarino,” Revista Geográfiea de Chile, No. 9 (June, 1953), pp. 45–51 Google Scholar; Gomez, Raúl Juliet, Exposición Sobre la Politica Exterior de Chile (Santiago, 1947, 77 pp.)Google Scholar; Vicuña, Eugenio Orrego, Terra Australis (Santiago, 1948, 272 pp.)Google Scholar ; Vila Labra, O., Historia y Geografía de la Antártica (Santiago, 1948, 67 pp.)Google Scholar. For a detailed bibliography of both the Argentine and Chilean literature, see Hayton, Robert D., The Polities of Argentine-Chilean Economic Union 523–537 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1954)Google Scholar.

¹² See Chile, Dirección General de Educación Primaria, Antártida Chilena, pp. 3–4 (1948).

¹³ In both Argentina and Chile the term austral (southern) is commonly used to designate the whole of the Patagonia-Magallanes-Tierra del Fuego-Antarctic area. All such regions are considered remote, cold, and on the frontier. Dr. Armando Braun Menéndez publishes a monthly magazine in Buenos Aires entitled “Argentina Austral,” which is distributed all over the “southern” area. Constant preoccupation with the historic voyages of discovery, the economic and geopolitical prospects, and the current activities in the Antarctic is characteristic of such publications. See, for example, issues of the Revista Geográfiea de Chile (subtitled “Terra Australis”), particularly No. 4 (October, 1950), pp. 23–40, for the elaborate article by Chile's leading geopolitician and Executive Vice President of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, General Ramón Cañas Montalva, “Chile el mas Antártico de los Países del Orbe y su Responsabilidad Continental en el Sur-Pacífico” (with numerous geopolitical charts and maps); also his “El Pacífieo, Epicentro Geopolítico de un Nuevo Mundo en Estructuración,” in ibid., No. 12 (September, 1954), pp. 11–16.

¹⁴ Decree No. 1541, Sept. 7, 1939.

¹⁵ Decree No. 1747, Boletín Oficial, Nov. 6, 1940.

¹⁶ From the exposition to the Chilean Senate by Raúl Juliet Gomez, Minister for Foreign Affairs. A statement of the “historical, geographic, juridical, diplomatic and administrative antecedents.” Chile, Politica Int. 5.

¹⁷ Cisneros, César Díaz, Límites de la República Argentina 229 (Buenos Aires, 1944)Google Scholar. There had been negotiations between 1906 and 1908 without result, including a 1907 proposed treaty to divide “the islands and continents of the American Antarctic” between the two nations. Argentina's Foreign Minister, Dr. Estanislao Zeballos, warned that Great Britain was claiming all such lands and that Chile and Argentina “would have to unite to defend themselves.” Quoted in Juan Carlos Rodríguez, La República Argentina y las Adquisiciones Territoriales en el Continente Antártico 17 (1941).

¹⁸ Chile, Politica Int. 22. For a recent statement of the official Chilean position, see the Inf orme of the Interim Foreign Minister, Guillermo del Pedregal, in Chile, Senate, Diario de Sesiones (Jan. 13, 1954).

¹⁹ For the story of this originally English observatory from the Argentine point of view, see Argentina, International Service of Argentine Publications, The Argentine Antarctic 18–24 (Buenos Aires, n. d.); also Moneta, José Manuel, Cuatro Años en las Orcadas del Sur (Buenos Aires, 1939, 305 pp.)Google Scholar. For British comments see Waldock, loc. cit. 330–332.

²⁰ Though the Antarctic Circle begins technically at 66° 30', the influence of the cold extends much further toward the Equator. “[The Antarctic] has unassailably the severest climate on earth, with winter temp, dropping to – 70°F. and even – 80° F., and in the brief unthawing Antarctic summers temp, remains at an average of 15° F. lower than those of the Arctic Regions.” Columbia Lippincott Gazetteer of the World 77–78 (1952 ed.). Anything south of 60° is thought of as definitely “Antarctic.” The South Orkneys, South Shetlands and much of the Palmer Peninsula lie just south of that line but outside the Antarctic Circle. In addition there is a tendency to regard all regions beyond approx. 45° as “austral” or Sub-Antarctic to Antarctic. The South Georgia and South Sandwich groups (of the British sector) are north of 60°; neither Argentina nor Chile extends its sector to include these islands. Argentina, however, maintains claims to these territories. See Kosack 14, for a map of several additional means of delimiting the Antarctic region.

²¹ Quoted in Aramayo, op. cit. 155.

²² See among titles not cited elsewhere: Euiz, Primavera Aeuña de Mones, Antártida Argentina, Islas Oceánicas, Mar Argentino (Buenos Aires, 1948, 75 pp.)Google Scholar; Alávraqui, S., “La Antártida,” Revista Geográfica Americana, No. 27, pp. 71–86 (Buenos Aires, 1947)Google Scholar; Argentina, , National Commission on the Antarctic, Antártida Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1949, 39 pp.)Google Scholar, and Soberanía Argentina en la Antártica (1947, 2d ed., 1948, with introduction by President Juan Perón, 91 pp.) ; Laos, Felipe Barreda, La Antártida Sudamericana Ante el Derecho International (Buenos Aires, 1948, 32 pp.)Google Scholar; Montyn, Carlos Berraz, Nuestra Soberanía en la Antártida (Santa Fe, 1951, 76 pp.)Google Scholar; Guernick, M., “La República Argentina y la Cuestión del Antártico,” Revista Argentina de Derecho Internacional, No. 5, pp. 100–101 (Buenos Aires, 2d. ser., Jan–March 1942)Google Scholar; Moreno, Raúl S. Martínez, Soberanía Antártica Argentina (Tucumán, 1951)Google Scholar; Moreno, J. C., “El Continents Antártico, El Sector Argentino … es el más importante de la Antártida … ,” Revista Geográfica Americana, No. 29, pp. 1–16 (July, 1948)Google Scholar, and “El Porvenir de la Antártida,” ibid., No. 30, pp. 193–198 (October, 1948); Radío, Pedro, Soberanía Argentina en la Antártica (Valladolid, 1948, 52 pp.)Google Scholar; Rodríguez, J. C., “Adquisiciones Territoriales en el Continente Antártico,” in 10 Proceedings, Eighth American Scientific Congress 305–310 (Washington, 1943)Google Scholar; Salgueiro, A. A., El Continente Blanco (Buenos Aires, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, 1950, 79 pp.)Google Scholar.

²³ See, for example, Videla, Graciela Albornoz de, Evita, Libro de Lectura para Primer Grado Inferior 24–25 (Buenos Aires, 1953)Google Scholar, where under colored drawings and “ ¡Viva la Patria!” the Malvinas Islands (Falklands) and the Antarctic are declared to be “ ¡ … Argentinas!”

²⁴ Much of the literature is so oriented: Argentina, , Ministry of Education, Soberanía Argentina en el Archipiélago de las Malvinas y en la Antártida (La Plata, 1951, 588 pp.)Google Scholar; Argentina, , National Commission on the Antarctic, Las Islas Malvinas y el Sector Antártieo Argentino (Buenos Aires, 1948, 28 pp.)Google Scholar; Molano, Elias Díaz and Hornet, Esteban, Tierras Australes Argentinas Malvinas-Antártida (Buenos Aires, 1948, 384 pp.)Google Scholar; Moreno, Juan Carlos, Nuestras Malvinas, La Antártida (Buenos Aires, 1949, 298 pp.)Google Scholar; Giménez, Leopoldo Ramos, Las Islas Malvinas y la Antártida Argentina, Atlas Documental (Buenos Aires, 1948, 48 sheets)Google Scholar. Maps designating the Falkland Islands as such (instead of Islas Malvinas) are forbidden entry into the Argentine. For an exhaustive discussion of this matter, see Goebel, Julius, The Struggle for the Falkland Islands (1927, 482 pp.)Google Scholar. The Argentine case is presented in detail in Caillet-Bois, B., Una Tierra Argentina: Las Islas Malvinas (Buenos Aires, 1948, 443 pp.)Google Scholar; Hidalgo Nieto, M., La Cuestión de Las Malvinas (Madrid, 1947, 762 pp.Google Scholar, including important documents). See also Kosack 131–132.

²⁵ This action was precipitated in part by the desire to participate in the International Polar Exposition in Norway, which did not take place as a result of the outbreak of war in Europe.

²⁶ Quaranta, op. cit. 189–202. The first director was Isidoro Ruiz Moreno. See also Kosack 132–133, 135 (including mention of a plan for an Antarctic University at San Carlos de Bariloche). Both Argentina and Chile have issued special postage stamps depicting their Antarctic territories and have indulged in other such nominal manifestations of sovereignty. More important, actual postofflces serving the year-round bases have been in operation since 1947. Argentina's Laurie Island (South Orkneys) postoffice dates technically from 1904.

²⁷ Rodríguez, La República Argentina y las Adquisiciones Territoriales en el Continents Antártieo 16.

²⁸ Argentina, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Tratados y Convenciones Vigentes en la Naeifin Argentina, Vol. I (1925), pp. 253–255.

²⁹ Kosaek 127. For these exchanges of notes see various issues (some cited in this article) of the Memoria and of the Boletin of the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, and of the Memoria of the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Christie, op. cit. 305–316. For a Latin American interpretation (with documents) of this diplomacy, see Aramayo, op. cit. 213–234, 263–279, 293–305, 329–356.

³⁰ Op. cit. 230–232. Chile's present claim begins at 53°. See also Pinochet 140, for this Chilean's suggestion that a “proper” Argentine claim would have been only as far as 60° 30', i.e., just to the far side of Nueva Island in the Canal Beagle, easternmost point of Chilean territory. An unofficial Argentine map (in La Nación, Buenos Aires, Nov. 8, 1940) once depicted a sector of from 40° to 68°. The Argentine, José Manuel Moneta, after years of study, contended it was necessary (if sectors were to be used) to fix the Antarctic boundary between the two countries “at 68° 36’ 38” 5 Meridian which divides Tierra del Fuego from north to south.” Cited in José Carlos Vittone, La Soberanía Argentina en el Continente Antártieo 111 (Buenos Aires, 1948).

³¹ Chile filed reservations to such a claim with the Argentine Chancellery. Pinochet 140; Christie, op. cit. 270.

³² See Vittone, op. cit. 111. However, in 1947 Argentina added to its traditional clause concerning the Falkland Islands a reservation to the Rio Treaty concerning the South Georgia Islands, South Sandwich Islands, “and lands within the Argentine antarctic sector, over which the Republic exercises the corresponding sovereignty.” Cited in Quaranta, op. cit. 197. Answering a British Memorandum to the Ninth Inter-American Conference, Foreign Minister Bramuglia expounded Argentine claims to the Malvinas and to the Antarctic in detail in Bogotá in 1948. See Argentina, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Boletín, No. 28 (April, 1948), pp. 142–159. In 1949 at Havana, Argentina set forth her exact claims to the “American Committee for Dependent Territories” (see Argentina, The Argentine Antarctic, p. 42). At the Tenth Inter-American Conference in Caracas, Argentina promoted Resolutions XCVI and XCVTI opposing colonies and occupied territories in the “Territory of the Americas.” See 6 Annals of the Organization of American States 116–118 (Special No., 1954).

³³ The same is also true concerning the Chilean sector on maps published in Chile. A remarkable error was committed by the peronista paper Critica of Buenos Aires when it printed on Feb. 20, 1953, a large map of the Antarctic showing the western border of Argentina's sector at the 68th Meridian.

³⁴ Promulgated June 28, 1955, Boletín Official, June 30, 1955.

³⁵ Art. I. The remainder of the statute is devoted to provisions for a constitutional convention in each of the five new Provinces and other transitional measures. “Islands of the South Atlantic” means to include the Falkland Islands, South Georgia Island and the South Sandwich Islands. Implementation of the statute has not yet occurred.

³⁶ Daniel, loc. cit. 253; Christie, op. cit. 268–276, 280–283.

³⁷ Britain promised in the note (Art. 8) to accept the Court's jurisdiction and to respect its decision, if the Argentine Government were disposed to submit the question either of the entire area or of a part of the area. This offer to adjudicate the dispute before the International Court of Justice has since been repeated to both Chile and Argentina on several occasions: Notes of April 30, 1951, Feb. 16, 1953, and Dec. 21, 1954 (all without favorable response). The note of Dec. 21, 1954, added the alternative of submission to an independent ad hoc arbitral tribunal, which likewise was declined. I. C. J., Application Instituting Proceedings Filed in the Begistry of the Court on May 4th, 1955, Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Argentina), p. 58.

³⁸ Reproduced in Argentina, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Boletín, No. 25 (January, 1948), pp. 140–146.

³⁹ ibid. 148–154. The Minister's note to the British Ambassador dated Feb. 15, 1947, contains a formal exposition of Argentina's claims.

⁴⁰ Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memoria, 1948, pp. 245–246, 356; see also the signing ceremony speeches at pp. 353–355. On July 12, 1947, the two Foreign Ministers had managed a joint declaration at a time when controversy was on the rise. It said in part: “[The Ministers of Foreign Affairs] have agreed … convinced as they are of the indisputable rights of sovereignty of Chile and the Argentine Republic over the South American Antarctic, that they favor the realization of a plan for harmonious action by Governments with regard to better scientific knowledge of the Antarctic zone, through explorations and technical studies; that likewise they consider convenient a common effort in regard to the utilization of the wealth of this region; and that it is their desire to arrive as soon as possible at the conclusion of a Chilean-Argentine Treaty of Demarcation of Limits in the South American Antarctic….” Argentina, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Instrumentos Internationales de Caracter Bilateral Suscriptos por la República Argentina, Vol. II (1950), p. 648; Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Soberanía de Chile en la Antártica 55 (1948).

⁴¹ See the relevant decrees in Pinochet 87–89; a description of the events and the text of the President's address is in Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memoria, 1948, pp. 339–344.

Argentina now calls the same peninsula “Tierra San Martín.” The original British name was Trinity Land, subsequently changed to Graham's Land. The United States uses Palmer Peninsula. Wide divergence now exists in the names of much of this area. For comparative tables of English, Argentine and Chilean names, see Karto-graphische Nachrichten, No. 4 (1954), pp. 37–38 (prepared by H. P. Kosack).

⁴² Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memoria, 1949, p. 314. The United States voluntarily observed the provisions of the agreement and congratulated the Powers upon reaching it. Aramayo, op. cit. 323. “Habitual movements” refers to the annual expeditions for purposes of garrison relief, installation maintenance and scientific study.

⁴³ That is, December, 1948, to April, 1949, the Southern Hemisphere's summer. See Argentina, The Argentine Antarctic 43.

⁴⁴ By simple recommunication of the text with the pertinent change in the dates renewals have been made on Nov. 18, 1949, Nov. 20, 1950, Nov. 26, 1952, etc. See, for example, the corresponding Memorias of Chile's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1949, pp. 25–26; 1950, p. 176) ; Kosack 128; 31 Dept. of State Bulletin 817 (1954).

⁴⁵ See, for example, Chile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memoria, 1949, pp. 315–316; Memoria, 1950, pp. 177–178.

⁴⁶ Shelters have been constructed at many points in the Antarctic. These always house flags, coats of arms, or other indications of the nationality—and alleged sovereign authority—of the erecting Power.

⁴⁷ For the text of the Feb. 20th Chilean note, see the Government paper, La Nación (Santiago), Feb. 21, 1953. For the Argentine note, see La Prensa (Buenos Aires), Feb. 21, 1953. London first made the matter public on Feb. 21 by releasing the Feb. 16 British notes to Argentina and Chile. See also the peronista propaganda magazine, Verdad, Año II, No. 9 (March, 1953), pp. 1, 41–43. Considerable sympathy was received from a number of other Latin American countries, some of which have their own grievances against the United Kingdom.

⁴⁸ Pars. 10 and 12. The note is replete with assertions of unconditional sovereignty over the Chilean Antarctic. See the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio, 1947), Arts. 3 and 9. Art. 4 of the same treaty defines the area of the American Defense Zone. Arctic and Antarctic sectors are included, the latter being from 24° to 90° West Long., almost identical to the combined Argentine and Chilean sectors (25° to 90°).

⁴⁹ See Arts. 24, 25, 43 and 52 of the O. A. S. Charter.

⁵⁰ Quaranta, op. cit. 130. In this connection the President of the Argentine National Commission on the Antarctic said in an otherwise very nationalistic address on Aug. 1, 1948: “With Chile, then, the only thing remaining is to delimit a common frontier.” Dr. Pascual La Rosa, “Soberanía Argentina en las Islas Malvinas, Los Territorios Australes de la República,” in Argentina, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Boletín, No. 32 (August, 1948), p. 60. See also Canepa, Luis, Historia Antártica Argentina, Nuestros Derechos 8–10 (Buenos Aires, 1948)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ See, for example, Chile, Politica Int. 27; Madariaga, Enrique Cordovez, La Antártida Sudamericana 49–58 (Santiago, 1945)Google Scholar; Argentina, The Argentine Antarctic 49–50; General Ramón Cañas Montalva, “Reflexiones Geopolíticas Sobre el Presente y el Futuro de Amírica y de Chile,” in Revista Geográfica de Chile, No. 13 (May, 1955), pp. 7–23.

⁵² Op. cit. 117.

⁵³ Dodson, loc. cit. 2—4. For an imaginative suggestion that atomic bombs be used to remove the ice cap in the Antarctic region and thus lay bare the mineral deposits, see the editor's note to the reprint (in translation) of Belgian Geographer P. Four-marier's article, “La Antartica y la Evoluei6n Geol6gica de la Superflcie del Globo Terrestre,” in Eevista Geografica de Chile, No. 12 (September, 1954), pp. 106–107. The only current economic exploitation is whaling. See D. H. Miller, “National Eights in the Antarctic,” Foreign Affairs, April, 1927; Kosack 108–125.

⁵⁴ Actually this writer shares the moderate view expressed by F. Illingworth, “Antarctica,” Fortnightly, No. 969, at pp. 210–211 (new ser., Sept. 1947). See also W. L. S. Fleming, “Contemporary International Interest in the Antarctic,” 23 International Affairs (1947), esp. pp. 551, 555.

⁵⁵ An example of highly exaggerated nationalism can be found in the article by school teacher Josefina A. Marazzi, “La Soberanía Argentina en la Antártica,” Argentina Austral, Año 23, pp. 13–18 (February, 1952). The piece was awarded a prize by the Argentine Naval Ministry. See also Hans-Peter Kosack, “Die Nutzbaren Langerstaetten in der Antarktis,” Bergmaennische Zeitschrift “Gliickauf,” Nos. 25 and 26 (1954), as translated (”La Explotación de los Yacimientos Minerales de la Antártica”), with comments by Pablo Ihl C. in Revista Geográfica de Chile, No. 13, pp. 83–90 (May, 1955).

⁵⁶ From 53° to 74° W. Long., covered also by the British sector. The longitudes not in this overlap are mostly open sea (South Orkneys excepted) or remote Antarctic mainland strips.

⁵⁷ For a résumé of the dispute see Hayton, op. cit. 23–53, bibliography, pp. 461–495, and documents, pp. 562–579. For an analysis of the arbitration, see Mrs.Kinnaird, Lucia (Burk), Argentina and the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, Ch. VIII (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1934)Google Scholar; also Gordon Ireland, Boundaries, Possessions, and Conflicts in South America (1938).

⁵⁸ Principally the disposition of three small islands, Lennox, Picton and Nueva at the eastern mouth of the Canal Beagle. For a full discussion with maps and bibliography see Hayton, op. cit. 188–197, 607. See also Magnet, Alejandro, Nuestros Vecinos Justicialistas 183–187 (Santiago, 1954)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ One of the Pactos de Mayo, signed May 28, 1902. English translation in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, pp. 20–21.

⁶⁰ Two by no means synonymous terms, as the Chileans and Argentines discovered during their sixty-year dispute.

⁶¹ See Díaz and Hornet, op. cit. 344, though the authors thought the task of tracing the border in this manner would be exceedingly difficult.

⁶² Ruiz, Acuña de Mones, Conciencia Antártica Argentina 24 (Santa Fe, 1948)Google Scholar. He did not suggest, however, any division with Chile along these lines.

⁶³ “The Geology of the Antarctic,” Ch. 3 in The Antarctic Today 56–101 (Wellington, 1952, F. A. Simpson, ed.).

⁶⁴ Ibid. 75–83 and esp. his map on p. 58 depicting this huge swing and the major geotectonic relationships of the Antarctic Continent. See also Kosack 39–43; Quaranta, op. ait. 53, 182–183; Rojas, Eduardo Saavedra, “Algunos Antecedentes Históricos y Científicos Sobre el Origen del Continente Antártico,” Bevista Geográfica de Chile, No. 13, pp. 91–110 (May, 1955)Google Scholar. An Argentine study following the Scotia Arc theory is by Guillermo Sehulz, “Los Últimos Descubiimientos en la Antártida y sus Enseñanzas,” Argentina Austral 6–13 (June, 1949) ; see particularly Fig. 13 on p. 9 showing hydrographic depth zones.

⁶⁵ Though Drake's voyage occurred in 1578, see, for example, the 1588 map of Christeunum Sgrothenum, reproduced facing p. 16, Pinochet de la Barra, Chilean Sovereignty in Antarctica; the 1531 map of Orencio Finneo, reproduced opposite p. 6 in Quaranta, op. cit. An interesting essay on this topic is V. Stefanson's “The Theoretical Continent,” 29 Natural History 465–480 (1929).

⁶⁶ The term “discovery” as used herein refers to discovery of land, not to seas or to geometrical abstractions such as the South Pole in which title cannot be vested.

⁶⁷ Britain herself does not consider South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands—well north of the 60° Latitude—as, strictly speaking, Antarctic. But such a veTy large percentage of her acts in relation to the Falkland Island Dependencies as a whole has occurred in connection with these islands and the surrounding waters that serious redevelopment of her case, especially for the earlier years, would be necessary if she were forced to defend her claims to the strictly Antarctic sections apart from these distant sub-Antarctic groups. Note this weakness in International Court of Justice, Application Instituting Proceedings Filed in the Registry of the Court on May 4th, 1955, Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Argentina), pp. 10–30. In the case against Chile this problem arises even more clearly, since even activities in the South Orkneys (some 400 miles from the Antarctic mainland) might well be ruled extraneous where not directly related to activities in the South Shetland and Palmer Peninsula regions. International Court of Justice, Application Instituting Proceedings Filed in the Registry of the Court on May 4th, 1955, Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Chile), 81 pp.

⁶⁸ The Dutch mariner Dirk Gherritz may have sighted the South Shetlands in 1599; these archipelagos may have been known to private whaling and sealing expeditions from the latter part of the eighteenth century, but no precise records are extant. See University of Buenos Aires, Cronología de los Viajes a las Eegiones Australes 11–52 (1950, ed. by En B. Ossoinak Garibaldi et al, bibliog. pp. 257–270); Barra, Pinochet de la, La Antártida Chilena o Territorio Chileno Antártieo 11–21 (Santiago, 1944)Google Scholar ; Kosack 18–39 (a rigorous presentation—with diagrams—of the gradual reduction of the unknown area).

⁶⁹ The honor of “First Discoverer” of the Antarctic mainland is the subject of a long-standing controversy. See, for example, Win. H. Hobbs, “The Discovery of the Antarctic within the American Sector, as Bevealed by Maps and Documents,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Pt. I (1939), pp. 1–71. In addition to the new Soviet bid based on Admiral Bellingshausen's voyage (see pp. 12–13 of the United Nations Library bibliography cited above, for the Soviet literature), Argentina, active in the whaling trade of the South Atlantic at the time, challenges both the priority and the exclusiveness of the British and U. S. claims. The recently found log of Christopher Burdick, whaling captain from Nantucket, suggests a new contender (see Stockpole, E. A., “A First Becognition of Antarctica,” 4 Boston Public Library Quarterly 3–19 (1951))Google Scholar.

^69a In the absence of possession and especially prior to discovery (in this case, of a whole continent and its islands), the famous Papal Bulls, e.g., the Inter Cmtera of May 4, 1493, as a source of sovereignty are not to be taken seriously. The subsequent practice of states negatives their initial validity, if any. Violation of the navigation and commercial provisions of (for example) the Treaty of Utrecht on the part of the English may be proved, but it does not follow that acquisition of title to terra nullius under general international law is necessarily estopped by this breach of conventional obligation. There is no direct connection between general navigation rights and title to territory. Moreover, the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790 (particularly Art. VI) restricted the U. K. in southern waters only with reference to territory “already occupied by Spain” on the “eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent.” The Antarctic proper was by this time certainly not included, and, in any event, the proviso prohibiting new colonies also applied to Spain. For a thorough discussion of these and related treaties, the Papal Bulls and the pertinent legal issues raised, see Goebel, op. cit. 47–216, 261–270, 361–363, 412–432 (but the applications to the Antarctic are in several instances not the same as for the Falkland Islands).

⁷⁰ The concept of “inter-temporal law” is accepted here within limits, but nineteenth-century (or later) law must, it is believed, be applied to Antarctic disputes. See Max Huber's discussion of this principle as Arbitrator in the Island of Palmas Case, 22 A.J.I.L. 883 (1928)Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Simsarian, J. , “The Acquisition of Legal Title to Terra Nullius,” 53 Political Science Quarterly 111–128 (1938)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Even an inchoate title (or jus ad rem) would not result in the absence of this animus occupandi. According to Lauterpacht ‘s Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. I, p. 558 (8th ed., 1955), discovery plus symbolic annexation is called “fictitious occupation” and not capable of conveying sovereignty (jus in re), though he admits that state practice did not conform to the effective occupation rule until the nineteenth century. See A. S. Keller, O. J. Lissitzyn and F. J. Mann, Creation of Rights of Sovereignty through Symbolic Acts, 1400–1800 (1938, 182 pp.); Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 Wheat. 543.

Vattel wrote: “When navigators have met with desert countries, in which those of other countries had, in their transient visits, erected some monument to show their having taken possession of them, they have paid as little regard to that empty ceremony as to the regulation of the Popes, who divided a great part of the world between the crowns of Castile and Portugal.” Bk. I, Ch. XVIII, Sec. 209, as quoted in 1 Moore, Digest of International Law 26 (1906). See ibid. 264–265, on the “extravagant and unreasonable” nature of Spain's claim to the whole American Continent by virtue of tot discovery and grant of the Pope.

⁷² See von der Heydte, F. A., “Discovery, Symbolic Annexation and Virtual Effectiveness in International Law,” 29 A.J.I.L. 452–461 (1935)Google Scholar.

⁷³ 1 Oppenheim 558 (8th ed.). See Hill, N. L., Claims to Territory in International Law and Belations 145–158 (London, 1945)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ O. Svarlien, An Introduction to the Law of Nations 176–177 (1955). Green H. Hackworth insists that barring settlement, a claimant state must “establish that by some other process it is in a position to exercise control over what it claims as its own.” 1 Digest of International Law 453 (1940)Google Scholar. See Scott, J. B., “Arctic Exploration and International Law,” 3 A.J.I.L. 939–940 (1909)Google Scholar; Lindley, M. F., The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law 4–9 (London, 1926)Google Scholar; McKitterick, T. E. M., “The Validity of Territorial and Other Claims in Polar Regions,” 21 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law (3rd Ser.) 89–97 (1939)Google Scholar; and Lakhtine, W., “Rights over the Arctic,” 24 A.J.I.L. 709–711 (1930)Google Scholar, disavowing—for the Arctic—all the elements of effective occupation.

⁷⁵ Higgins’ 8th ed. of Hall, Treatise on International Law (1924), sec. 30. See Balch, T. W., “The Arctic and Antarctic Regions and the Law of Nations,” 4 A.J.I.L. 267–268, 274–275 (1910)Google Scholar; Lakhtine, loc. cit. 705–706; Scott, loc. cit. 941.

⁷⁶ Huber in the Island of Palmas Case held that “sovereignty cannot be exercised in fact at every moment on every point of a territory. The intermittence and diacontinuity compatible with the maintenance of the right necessarily differ” in varying circumstances. 22 A.J.I.L. 877 (1928)Google Scholar. See Waldock, loc. cit. 336–337; Cruchaga, M., Dereeho Internacional, Vol. I, p. 332 (Madrid, 1923)Google Scholar ; Fauchille, P., Traité de Droit International Public, Vol. I, p. 744 (Paris, 1926)Google Scholar. The extreme case of a small, desolate island requiring very infrequent “administration” is upheld in the famous Clipperton Island Award, translated in 26 A.J.I.L. 390 (1932)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ These bases had a total population in 1952 of 297 men (82 Chileans, 215 Argentines). Kosaek 144, note.

Chile has four: at Greenwich Island with a “Maritime Governor of the Chilean Antarctic” and a postal officer; on Palmer Peninsula at Bransfield Strait and at the Gerlache Channel; and since February, 1955, on Deception Island. Pinochet de la Barra, Chilean Sovereignty in Antarctica 55–56; Chile, Mensaje Presidential de 1955.

In addition to the Laurie Island station, Argentina now has eight detachments: at Gamma Island (Melchior Archipelago), at Hope Bay (tip of Palmer Peninsula), on Persson, Deception and Livingston Islands, on the mainland at Bismark Strait, in Marguerite Bay and on Coats Land (the new “General Belgrano” base). See Argentina, Informaciones Argentinas (Jan.-Feb.-March, 1947), “Soberanía Argentina en la Antártida. …”

The British now are maintaining at least eight establishments: at Deception Island, Port Lockroy, Hope Bay, Argentine Islands, Admiralty Bay, Signy Island in the South Orkneys, Anvers Island, and Horseshoe Island. Bases in Duke Ernst Bay (Igye) and on Shackleton Island were to have been established during the 1955–56 Antarctic season.

Only one U. S. base (proposed for 1956–57 in the Weddell Sea area at 78°S. and 47°W)—besides that planned for the South Pole itself—will fall within the “American” Antarctic. The bulk of the U. S. activity in recent years has been in the “Pacific” quadrant.

The above was compiled from the sources noted and from United States Navy (Operation “Deep Freeze”) Map of the Antarctic area with Stations for 1955–56 and 1956–57 (H. O. 16429, 2d ed., Oct. 27, 1955), from which exact locations may be obtained. See also Kosaek 290–291.

⁷⁸ 1 op. cit. 554–563.

⁷⁹ P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 (1933), pp. 45–46.

⁸⁰ Waldock, loc. cit. 336. To hold otherwise is to delete altogether the “continuous” aspect of effective occupation. Tacit intent (animus) to abandon may be implied after an extended period of complete administrative disregard for a territory by the home government (such as failure to list as territory in appropriate official documents and failure to provide appropriate rules for the government of the territory in question). See the Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France v. United Kingdom, [1953] I.C.J. Reports 47), digested and excerpted in 48 A.J.I.L. 319, 321, 323 (1954). On the general question of abandonment (voluntary dereliction) see 1 Moore, op. cit. 298–301.

⁸¹ 1 Oppenheim 559 (8th ed.); Clipperton Island Award, loc. cit. 393; Island of Palmas Case, 22 A.J.I.L. 912 (1928)Google Scholar; Minquiers and Eerehos Case, 48 ibid. 318–326 (1954). On prescription see 1 Moore, op. cit. 293–297. Inasmuch as this writer holds, in the last analysis, the Antarctic area to have been terra tmllius at least down to fairly recent times (and all titles have been developed in the presence of substantial competing state activity), this principle ought to have little concrete application in the final settlement. Prescription may be more appropriate in connection with the Falkland Islands dispute. See Johnson, D. H. N., “Acquisitive Prescription in International Law,” 27 Brit. Year Book of Int. Law 338–349 (1950)Google Scholar.

⁸² The 1810 uti possidetis was originally a mutual understanding between former members of the Spanish Empire. See, for example, Art. 39 of the 1855 Argentine-Chilean Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation: “Both contracting parties recognize as boundaries of their respective territories those that they possessed as such at the time of the separation from the Spanish domination in the year 1810. …” Quoted in Díaz Cisneros, op. cit. 45.

⁸³ See precisely this problem in the Clipperton Island Award, loc. cit. 393. Spanish discoveries in the South Atlantic are set forth in detail in Ruiz-Guiñazú, E., Proas de España en el Mar Magallánico (Buenos Aires, 1945, 170 pp.)Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Pinochet de la Barra, Chile's semi-official authority on this subject, admits the inchoate status of Spanish titles as inherited by the new republic, but contends that certain administrative actions from 1892 and in 1906 constitute the final completion of title (Chilean Sovereignty in Antarctica 34–40).

⁸⁵ Otherwise, no more than the de facto rights achieved by revolution may be adduced. The new regimes were barely in effective control of their more settled latitudes, not to mention unsubdued Patagonia or regions much further south. Many Latin American writers consider the legal separation from Spain in a special (and highly problematical) light based on a “decentralized” concept of the Empire during the Napoleonic occupation of Spain and a subsequent “independence of the vice royalties” as such. In this rather forced explanation of events the uti possidetis doctrine has its theoretical foundations, but this view is not deemed relevant vis-à-vis third Powers, i.e., not to affect rights under general international law. For another view see the arbiter's dictum quoted in Scott, J. B., “The Swiss Decision in the Boundary Dispute Between Colombia and Venezuela,” 16 A.J.I.L. 428–429 (1922)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ The arbitrary nature of the time periods suggested is fully realized. However, in any final determination of this legal question, some court or arbitrator will have to ascertain the crucial dates or time periods. It is hoped that the forthright expression of what one writer believes “reasonable” under the circumstances will at least lead to the disclosure of other opinions on the matter. See Lindley, op. cit. 152–157, for a discussion of fifty years as the reasonable period in the British Guiana-Venezuela Boundary Arbitration Treaty.

⁸⁷ See Waldock, loc. cit. 319–320; Pinochet 24–28; University of Buenos Aires, op. cit. 11–47.

⁸⁸ The original Letters Patent for this area, dated 1908, also amounted to a sector, though this was probably not the clear intention at that time. The remarks of the Canadian Senator Poirier first suggesting some such device for the Arctic were made in 1907. See Waldock, loc. cit. 327–328, 337–338.

⁸⁹ See Lakhtine, loc. cit. 703–717; Corbett, op. cit. 114; 1 Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States 347–355 (2d ed., 1945).

⁹⁰ Lakhtine, loc. cit. 705. See also Shackleton, B., “Antarctica … ,” 3 United Nations World 19–21 (1949)Google Scholar.

⁹¹ See 1 Hyde, op. cit. 350. It should be noted that, strictly speaking, the Chilean sector has no such base line. Official maps accord with the letter of the original 1940 Decree, denoting only the longitudinal sides, though the marking usually ceases at the 60th Parallel.

Waldock (loc. cit. 340–341) rejects Jessup's contention that the British sector is predicated on the location of the Falkland Islands and constitutes a “projection of longitudinal lines outward from those islands.” ( Jessup, Philip C., “Sovereignty in Antarctica,” 41 A.J.I.L. 119 (1947 Google Scholar).) But the arbitrariness of sector lines cannot easily be dismissed. Waldock contends that the British sector is “based on ‘occupation’ rather than discovery” and that though it may “appear to include areas of the high seas” the “high seas are not in fact claimed and the projection of the sectors north of the [Antarctic] continent only serves as a convenient means of bringing under a single geographical definition both the continental sector and individual islands to which specific titles are also professed.” (Loc. cit. 341 note, 341). The sweeping claim, then, to “all islands and territories whatsoever …” by the 1917 Letters Patent would appear excessive. The 1908 Letters Patent are, in contrast, very specific about the territories claimed. Furthermore, it may be suggested that the British may wish to lend to the whole area a relatively high degree of state activity which in reality has taken place primarily in the more northeasterly, sub-Antarctic reaches of the sector. It seems inconsistent to maintain that the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands form some kind of “unity” with the Antarctic mainland, while denying the Argentine and Chilean claims to “contiguity” when the traditional territories of the latter are some 300 miles closer to the South Shetlands and Palmer Peninsula. See Patrón, Luis Riso, “La Antártida Americana” (published separately from Anales de la Universidad de Chile in Santiago, 1908, 25 pp.)Google Scholar, p. 10, for his definition of what is included in the “American Antarctic,”

⁹² See 1 Moore, op. cit, 265–267.

⁹³ See Smedal, G., Acquisition of Sovereignty over Polar Areas 54–76 (Oslo, 1931)Google Scholar, for an able critique of “The Sector Principle.”

⁹⁴ In addition to other chronologies cited above, see the voyages of Antarctic discovery and exploration by all nations, catalogued in U. S. Department of Interior, U. S. Board of Geographical Names, The Geographical Names of Antarctica 20–109 (Special Pub. No. 86, 1947), starting with James Cook (1772–1775) and ending with the Byrd Expedition of 1939–40. British visits totaled 15 up to 1845, and 43 by 1940; the United States had 7 voyages up to 1845 and a total of 16; Argentina had only one recorded (1903) as a purely relief and rescue mission for a Swedish expedition. Chile had none. Of course, since World War II the frequency of visits to the area by all interested parties shows marked increase (Kosack 261–285).

⁹⁵ See Pinochet de la Barra, Chilean Sovereignty in Antarctica 55–56; Quaranta, op. cit. 142–177; Waldock, loc. cit. 327–334. This is not to say that these states may not have superior titles to specific islands or specific strips of the coast.

⁹⁶ For a Soviet view of the sector theory as applied in the Antarctic—including an account of the alleged surreptitious role of United States “imperialists”—see Kulski's, W. W. exposition and critique, “Soviet Comments on International Law,” 45 A.J.I.L. 766–769 (1951)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Op. cit, 177.

⁹⁸ See address of Pascual La Rosa, op. eit. 62.

⁹⁹ See the trend reflected (even though resisted) in United Nations, Beports of the International Law Commission, 3rd Sess. (1951), pp. 16–20; 5th Sess. (1953), pp. 12–19; 6th Sess. (1954), pp. 12–21, and 7th Sess. (1955), pp. 2–22, 25–49; H. Lauterpacht, “Sovereignty over Submarine Areas,” 27 Brit. Year Book of Int. Law 376–433 (1950).

¹⁰⁰ The certainty of the law is without doubt one of its highest values. Change is the opposite of certainty, and informal, rapid change is—from the legal point of view—the “enemy of the law.” In the absence of more centralized lawmaking and law-applying machinery, however, the disabilities of a primitive international system must be tolerated, even accommodated within the system or else the contention that there is such a thing as international law must be abandoned altogether. See Tucker, B. W., “The Principle of Effectiveness in International Law,” Law and Politics in the World Community (1953, G. A. Lipsky, ed.), pp. 31–48 Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ It may be noted that neither Chile nor Argentina has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Disinclination to adjudicate the Antarctic question under the existing law may partially account for this fact.

¹⁰² In 1947, on petition from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. See the pertinent documents cited in The United Nations Library bibliography (cited above), p. 3 (entries 25–35).

¹⁰³ Canepa, op. cit. 5.

¹⁰⁴ Raúl Juliet Gömez, Minister of Foreign Affairs, in Chile, Política Int. 28.

¹⁰⁵ I.C.J., Application Instituting Proceedings … May 4th, 1955, Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Argentina), 85 pp., and the same, except Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Chile), 81 pp. These documents contain rather complete and important formulations of the British claims. Even though not appearing before the Court, Chile and Argentina can hardly afford to ignore the challenge to publish statements (likewise in English and French) as thorough and dispassionate as these two by the United Kingdom. See also Hudson, M. O., “The Thirty-Fourth Year of the World Court,” 50 A.J.I.L. 10 (1956)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ New York Times, May 7 and Aug. 4, 1955; La Prensa (Buenos Aires) editorial of July 4 and text of the Argentine letter to the Court, Aug. 4, 1955; Chile, Mensaje Presidencial de 1955.

¹⁰⁷ Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Chile), Order of March 16th, 1956, [1956] I.C.J. Rep. 15; Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Argentina), Order of March 16, 1956, [1956] I.C.J. Rep. 12. These cases were Folios 26 (Argentina) and 27 (Chile) on the Court's General List. I.C.J. Yearbook, 1954–1955, pp. 72–73.

It should be kept in mind that, given jurisdiction, the Court might or might not have acquiesced in the use of sectors (even when employed by all litigants), might have divided the territories piecemeal, or might have refused to award all or part of the region if it should discover other claimants than the present parties, or if it should find certain titles to be imperfect. The Judgment might well have left part or all of the disputed area in an inchoate title status; portions might have been found to be res nullius still.

¹⁰⁸ Discussion in this article of extra-legal solutions in the Antarctic has been restricted to the bare minimum compatible with making the reader aware of some of the alternatives.

¹⁰⁹ U. S. military (among others) and more especially naval circles would, in this writer's opinion, be eager for such a windfall or for any other development which would strengthen or make express the U. S. position in the Antarctic.

¹¹⁰ Of particular significance in the event of wartime interruption of the Panama Canal. The largest aircraft carriers are too wide for the Canal's locks and must go around Cape Horn in any case. Dodson, loc. cit. 2.

¹¹¹ See Holmes, Olive, “Antarctic Claims Baise Colonial Issue in Americas,” 27 Foreign Policy Bulletin (1948)Google Scholar.

¹¹² There is a growing feeling in some circles that the United States is about to abandon its position of silence (with reservation of all rights) and is about to give notice of specific claims. It could claim only the region from 90° W. to 150° W. Long., i.e., in the “Pacific Quadrant” between the New Zealand and the Chilean claims without conflicting with some already existing sector. The suggestion cannot be avoided, indeed, that the other interested states have more or less left that sector for eventual U. S. “requirements.” Admiral Eichard E. Byrd has recently been made the Director of a new Office of Antarctic Programs in the Defense Department. New York Times, Nov. 3, 1955, and March 12, 1956.

¹¹³ See Shackleton, op. cit. Nothing has been published or uttered to indicate that the United States has deserted its basic approach as enunciated in 1948: an extended exchange of views among the interested states looking toward a possible future conference and some form of internationalization to promote scientific investigation and research in the area (see note 6 above). In 1955 the U. S. invited Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom to send observers on the Navy's preparatory expedition (“Operation Deep Freeze”) for the coming International Geophysical Year. 32 Dept. of State Bulletin 644, 998 (1955).

¹¹⁴ The crucial point is whether the U. K. can prove that as of ea. 1940 this portion of the Antarctic was no longer terra nullius, while trying to show that it was so up until at least 1819–1820.

¹¹⁵ U. N. General Assembly, 11th Sess., Doc. A/3118, Feb. 21, 1956. An explanatory Memorandum to all delegations is in preparation in New Delhi. Argentina and Chile do not favor this development because, again, it tends to reduce the exclusiveness of their position and the regional character of their dispute with Britain. President Ibanez of Chile recently intimated that he would be willing for the Organization of American States to act as mediator in the dispute (article by J. Newman in New York Herald Tribune, March 31, 1956).