Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:51:01.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some reflections on the Antarctic Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

F.W.G. Baker
F.W.G. Baker*
Affiliation:
La Combe de Sauve, Venterol 26110, France ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

2009 brings not only the 50th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty but also the end of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and of its extension into the period of International Geophysical Cooperation (IGC 1959). It is also the 133rd anniversary of K. Weyprecht's suggestion that initiated the impetus. As he noted, ‘if Polar Expeditions are looked upon merely as a sort of international steeple-chase . . . and their main object is to exceed by a few miles the latitude reached by a predecessor these mysteries (of Meteorology and Geomagnetism) will remain unsolved’ (Weyprecht 1875). Although he stressed the importance of observations in both the Arctic and Antarctic during the first International Polar Year (IPY) in 1882–1883 only two stations in the sub-Antarctic region, at Cap Horn and South Georgia, made such scientific recordings. In spite of the fact that several expeditions to the Antarctic had been made in the period between the first and the second IPY 1932–1933, no stations were created in Antarctica during that IPY. The major increase in scientific studies in Antarctica came with the third IPY, which became the IGY of 1957–1958.

Type
50 years on: invited reflections on the Antarctic Treaty
Information
Polar Record , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 2 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Baker, F.W.G. 2009. Chile, the International Geophysical Year, and the Antarctic. Polar Record 45 (1): 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullis, H. 1973. The political legacy of the International Geophysical Year. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office: 61–62.Google Scholar
Dessler, A.E., and Parson, E.A.. 2006. The science and politics of global climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenot, Y. 2008. Antarctique, une destination pas comme les autres. Pôles 1: 94–105.Google Scholar
Heap, J.A., and Holdgate, M.W. (editors). 1986. The Antarctic Treaty system as an environmental mechanism – an approach to environmental issues in Antarctic Treaty system; an assessment. Washington D.C: National Academy Press: 195–210.Google Scholar
Hessian, J. 1960. The Antarctic Treaty. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 9: 436–480.Google Scholar
Holdgate, M.W. 1984. The use and abuse of polar environmental resources. Polar Record 22 (136): 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclavère, G.R. 1986. Le Traité sur l'Antarctique. Cahiers des Explorateurs 26: 23–26.Google Scholar
Nicolet, M. 1959 Annals of the International Geophysical Year, Volume IIB, 429 – 30. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Weyprecht, C. 1875. Fundamental principles of scientific Arctic investigation. An address delivered before the 46th meeting of German Naturalists and Physicians, Graz.Google Scholar