Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:24:29.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘open door’ into Antarctica: an explanation of the Hughes doctrine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

H. Robert Hall
H. Robert Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart Tasmania 7001, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to explain the doctrine concerning sovereignty in Antarctica articulated by Charles E. Hughes, a former US Secretary of State, and to account for its persistence in underpinning US Antarctic policy. The doctrine was part of the New Imperialism — the surge of colonial expansion and spheres of influence that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. US imperialism sought to establish an ‘open door’ international order to exploit America's growing economic power; the Hughes doctrine extended this policy into Antarctica, preserving US access to all of the region by denying recognition of claims by other countries.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 25 , Issue 153 , April 1989 , pp. 137 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Archdale, H. E. 1957. Legality in the Antarctic. Australian Outlook 11:10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auburn, F. M. 1982. Antarctic law and politics. London, C. Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
Barraclough, G. 1967. An introduction to contemporary history. Harmondsworth, Penguin.Google Scholar
Beck, P. J. 1983. Securing the dominent ‘Place in the Wan Antarctic Sun’ for the British Empire: the policy of extending British control over Antarctica. Australian Journal of Politics and History 29(3): 448–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, P. J. and Hopkins, A. G. 1986. Gentlemanly capitalism and British expansion overseas. I. The old colonial system, 1688–1850. Economic History Review, Second Series, 39(4): 501–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, P. J. and Hopkins, A. G. 1987. Gentlemanly capitalism and British expansion overseas. II. New imperialism, 1850–1945. Economic History Review, Second Series, 40(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulles, J. F. 1958. Our changing world. Department of State Bulletin 38(987): 847–50.Google Scholar
Fieldhouse, D. K. 1973. Economics and empire 1830–1914. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. and Robinson, R. 1953. The imperialism of free trade. Economic History Review, Second Series, 6(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, L. C. 1968. American foreign policy 1900–1921: a second look at the realist critique of American diplomacy. In: Bernstein, B. J. (editor) Towards a new past. New York, Pantheon Books..Google Scholar
Glad, B. 1966. Charles Evans Hughes and the illusions of innocence. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hilferding, R. 1981. Finance capital. Edited with an introduction by Bottomore, T. from translations by Watrick, M. and Gordon, S.. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hobson, J.A. 1902. Imperialism:a study. London, Nisbet.Google Scholar
Hughes, C. E. 1939. The Secretary of Slate to the Norwegian Minister [Bryn]. Foreign Relations of the United States 1924, volume II. Washington, US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
International Court of Justice Pleadings, Antarctic cases, (United Kingdom v. Argentina; United Kingdom v. Chile).Google Scholar
Kenen, P. B. and Lubitz, R. 1971. International economics, (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lenin, V. I. 1947. Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism. Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House.Google Scholar
Louis, W. R. 1978. Imperialism at bay. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Magdoff, H. 1972. Imperialism without colonies. In: Owen, R. and Sutcliffe, R. (editors). Theories of imperialism. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Miller, D. H. 1927. National rights in the Antarctic. Foreign Affairs, 5(3): 508–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pusey, M. J. 1952. Charles Evans Hughes. New York, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Quigg, P. W. 1983. A pole apart. New York, McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J. 1961. Africa and the Victorians: the official mind of imperialism. London, Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.F. 1968. American foreign relations 1920–1942. In: Bernstein, B. J. (editor). Towards a new past. New York, Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Stedman Jones, G. 1977. The history of US imperialism. In: Blackburn, R. (editor). Ideology in social science. Glasgow, Fontana/Collins.Google Scholar
Sullivan, W. 1957. Quest for a continent. London, Seeker and Warburg.Google Scholar
Taubenfeld, H. J. 1961. A treaty for Antarctica. International Conciliation 531: 243–317.Google Scholar