Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:58:10.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Latin America and the Antarctic: an Exclusive Club

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Fred Parkinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review and Commentary
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , November 1985 , pp. 433 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 That the South Atlantic area as a whole is now viewed as of prime strategic and economic importance was attested during the War of the South-West Atlantic of 1982 by Argentina's foreign minister, N. Costa Méndez, who bluntly informed a television programme on 15 April 1982 that ‘there is something more important [than the matter of claims]. The meaning of the Argentine presence in the islands is that Argentina controls an area in the South Atlantic, politically and economically’. See The Economist, 24 04 1982.Google Scholar

2 Van, der Essen, Symposium, p. 235.Google Scholar

3 Sollie, ibid., p. 324.

4 Van der Essen, ibid., p. 234.

5 Guyer, ibid., p. 278.

6 UN Report, 2 11, p. 25.Google Scholar

7 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Bk v. i.e. 30. 1776).

8 Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, Norway, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

9 UN Report, 31 10, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

10 For Peru's ambivalence, see UN Report, 11., p. 137Google Scholar Chile's order of priorities in the Antarctic is fully revealed in ibid., 2 11., p. 17 as follows: (i) ‘its geographical and strategic importance’ (ii) ‘its renewable and non-renewable resources’, and (iii) ‘its scientific interest’.Google Scholar

11 Argentina and Chile can claim to be much closer to the nearest point in the Antarctic (950 km) than their fellow-claimants Austrialia (3,500 km) or New Zealand (2,000 km).

12 On Uruguay, see document of accession, in 19 International Legal Materials (1980), p. 547.Google Scholar On Brazil, see , J. SimŌes, ‘Brazilian Antarctic Research Programme’, Polar Record vol. 22 (1984), pp. 325–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 109.Google Scholar

14 The Guardian, 17 02 1984.Google Scholar

15 International Herald Tribune, 11 04 1984.Google Scholar

16 See North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Western Germany/Denmark/the Netherlands), ICJ Reports 1969 p. 22et seq.Google Scholar

17 Text in Brownlie, I. (ed.), Basic Documents in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd edition, 1983), pp. 122–6.Google Scholar

18 Text in ibid., pp. 204–11. For an analysis, see Cheng, B., ‘The Moon Treaty: agreement governing the activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies other than the Earth’, Current Legal Problems (1980) vol. 33, PP. 213–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 UN Report, 2 11, pp. 30–2.Google Scholar

20 Zegers, F., ‘The Antarctic System and the Utilisation of Resources’, Univeristy of Miami Law Review (1978), at pp. 431, 470, and 471.Google Scholar

21 UN Report, 31 10, p. 65.Google Scholar

22 Whales fall under the authority of the International Whaling Commission.

23 Couratier, , Symposium, pp. 142–3.Google Scholar

24 ibid., p. 144.

25 Couratier, , Symposium, p. 140.Google Scholar

26 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 160.Google Scholar

27 UN Report, 9 11, p. 90.Google Scholar

28 Article I of the Canberra Convention.

29 Article XII of the Canberra Convention.

30 Zegers, , Symposium, p. 155.Google Scholar

31 Auburn, , p. 224.Google Scholar

32 Couratier, , Symposium, p. 147.Google Scholar

33 UN Report, 31 10, p. 63.Google Scholar

34 González-Ferrán, , Symposium, p. 164.Google Scholar

35 ibid., p. 163.

36 UN Report, 31 10, p. 67.Google Scholar

37 The Guardian, 18 02, 1984.Google Scholar

38 UN Report, 9 11, PP. 127–8.Google Scholar

39 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 241.Google Scholar

40 González-Ferrán, , Symposium, p. 162.Google Scholar

41 Sollie, , Symposium, p. 318.Google Scholar

42 Beeby, ibid., p. 192.

43 Orrego, Vicuña, Symposium, pp. 199–201.Google Scholar

44 Auburn, , op cit., pp. 260–1.Google Scholar

45 ibid., p. 245 and UN Report, 31 10., p. 68,Google Scholar

46 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 262.Google Scholar

47 Zegers, F., ‘The Antarctic System and the Utilisation of Resources’, University of Miami Law Review, no. 33, (1978). 471.Google Scholar

48 UN Report, 31 10., p. 67.Google Scholar

49 UN Report, 31 10., p. 68. An Expert Working Group was set up in 1980, but the guidance it provided was disappointingly general and wide.Google Scholar

50 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 264.Google Scholar

51 Bergsager, , Symposium, pp. 174–5.Google Scholar

52 Auburn, , op. cit., p. 255.Google Scholar

53 Beeby, , Symposium, pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

54 Financial Times, 26 08 1984.Google Scholar

55 United Nations, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Index and Final Act of the Third UNCLOS (New York: United Nations, 1983).Google Scholar

56 Harry, R. L., ‘The Antarctic Régime and the Law of the Sea Convention: an Australian View’, Virginia Journal of International Law vol. 21, (1981), pp. 727–44.Google Scholar

57 UN Report, 31 10, p. 70.Google Scholar

58 Essen, , Symposium, p. 242.Google Scholar The editor expresses a marked desire to see the jurisdiction of such an International Sea-bed Authority excluded from the continental shelf of the Antarctic. See ibid., pp. 211–12.

60 Article 76 of the Montego Bay Convention defines the continental shelf as the sea-bed and subsoil of the submerged areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory up to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline.

60 Infante, Symposium, p. 253.

61 Guillaume, ibid., p. 189.

62 Shusterich, E. M., Resource Management and the Oceans: the Political Economy of Deep Sea Mining (Boulder, Colorado; Westview Press, 1982) provides a good summary of United States policy toward deep-sea mining.Google Scholar

63 Brazil made a move in that direction in 1956. See UN Report, 2 11., p. 3.Google Scholar

64 Guyer, , Symposium, p. 274. The inverted commas enclosing the word ‘justice’ are Guyer's.Google Scholar

65 Beeby, ibid., p. 196.

66 UN Chronicle, 17–1812, 1982.Google Scholar

67 SeeBeck, P. J., ‘Antarctica: a Case for the UN?’, The World Today, vol. 40, (1984), pp. 165–72.Google Scholar

68 Ibid.

69 UN Report, 31 10., p. 29.Google Scholar

70 Brennan, , Symposium, p. 226.Google Scholar

71 Sollie, ibid., p. 332.

72 Luard, E., ‘Who Owns the Antarctica’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 62, (1984), pp. 1175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Beeby, , Symposium, pp. 193–8.Google Scholar

74 See, for instance, Rich, R., ‘A Minerals Régime for Antarctica’, International and Comparative Law quarterly, vol. 31, (1982), pp. 709–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Wolfrum, R., Die Internalionalisierung staatsfreier Räume (Berlin: Springer, 1984), pp. 66–7 and 91.Google Scholar

76 Sollie, , Symposium, p. 334, Note 12.Google Scholar

77 Treaty concerning Spitzbergen, 9 Feb. 1920, Article 3.

78 Ibid., Article 8.

79 Orrego, Vicũna, Symposium, p. 244.Google Scholar

80 Gonzaález-Ferrán, Ibid., p. 164.

81 Luard, , op. cit., p. 335.Google Scholar

82 Jøhan, Jorgen Holst, a well–known Norwegian politician, writing in the Labour Party paper Arbeiderbladet of 30 04 and 13 05 1982,Google Scholar suggests the withdrawal of Norway's territorial claims in the Antarctic, See, Sollie, , Symposium, p. 325.Google Scholar

83 See Honnold, E. E., ‘Thaw in International Law'. Rights in Antarctica under the Law of Common Spaces’, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 87 (1977/1978), pp. 804–59.Google Scholar

84 Sollie, , Symposium, p. 324.Google Scholar

85 UN Report, 2 11, p. 25. Precisely ten lines out of the inordinately long, twenty-five page report by Chile, deal with the mineral issue.Google Scholar

86 Ibid., p. 32.

87 UN Report, 29 10. p. 24.Google Scholar

88 Ibid., 29 11., p. 31.

89 Ibid., p. 11.

90 UN Report, 9 11., p. 37.Google Scholar

91 Ibid., p. 74.

92 Ibid., 29 10., p. 102.

93 Orrego, Vicuña, Symposium, p. 200.Google Scholar

94 UN Report, 2 11., p. 18.Google Scholar

95 UN Report, 9 11., p. 45: ‘In the case of the Philippines, the Treaties of Paris and Washington could be the subject of scrutiny by the Consultative Parties if the Philippines pursues its position on Antarctica with Malaysia’.Google Scholar

96 Ibid., p. 99.

97 Beck, P. J., op. cit., p. 168.Google Scholar

98 UN Report, 2 11., p. 18.Google Scholar

99 Ibid., p. 40.

100 On this point, see Pallone, F., ‘Resources Exploitation: The Threat to the Legal Régime of Antarctica’, The International Lawyer, vol. (1978), pp. 547–61.Google Scholar

101 Luard, , op. cit., p. 1192.Google Scholar