Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

The Antarctic Resource Conventions Implemented: Consequences for the Sovereignty Issue

  • Chapter
The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics

Abstract

During the mid-1980s Alan James asked whether the concept of sovereignty should be treated as a ground rule of international relations or mere “gibberish”.

In the study of International Relations few terms cause more confusion than sovereignty … It is a difficult term to get away from … The matter is not assisted by the common suspicion that sovereignty has something to do with law, for law is widely taken to be an element to which any level-headed student of the international scene will give little time. On the other hand, sovereignty is also often supposed to have something to do with power — and that is a factor which commands attention.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Alan James, ‘Sovereignty: ground rule or gibberish?’, Review of International Studies, vol. 10(1), (1984), p. 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sir Anthony Parsons (chairman), Antarctica: the next decade (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1987), p. 3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Peter J. Beck, ‘Antarctica enters the 1990s’, Applied Geography, vol. 10 (4), (1990: in press).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Christopher Beeby, ‘The Antarctic Treaty System: goals, performance and impact’, paper at The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics Conference, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Oslo, May 1990, pp. 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Peter J. Beck, The International Politics of Antarctica (Croom Helm, London: 1986), pp. 119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Peter J. Beck, ‘A Cold War: Britain, Argentina and Antarctica’, History Today, vol. 37 (6), (1987), pp. 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  7. F.M. Auburn, Antarctic Law and Politics (Hurst, London: 1982), p. 104

    Google Scholar 

  8. Christopher C. Joyner, ‘The Evolving Antarctic Legal Regime: Review Article’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 83(3), (1989), p. 618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alfred van der Essen, ‘Application of the Law of the Sea to the Antarctic continent’ in Antarctic Resources Policy: scientific, legal and political issues, F. Orrego Vicuna (ed.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1983), p. 232.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Todd J. Parriott, ‘Territorial Claims in Antarctica: Will the United States be left out in the cold?’, Stanford Journal of International Law, vol. XXII(1), (1986), p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M.J. Peterson, Managing the Frozen South: the creation and evolution of the Antarctic Treaty System (University of California Press, Berkeley: 1988), pp. 220–222.

    Google Scholar 

  12. F. Orrego Vicuna, Antarctic mineral exploitation; the emerging legal framework (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1988), p. 76.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Peter J. Beck, ‘Antarctica as a zone of peace: A strategic irrelevance? A historical and Contemporary Survey’, Paper at AIIA Conference on Antarctica’s Future: Continuity or Change, Hobart, November 1989, p. 12 (to be published in R. Herr, H. Hall and M. Haward (eds), Antarctica’s Future: Continuity or Change? (AIIA/Tasmanian Government Printing Office, Hobart: 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Antarctic Treaty negotiations, Heads of Delegation meetings, 11 and 17 November 1959; John A. Heap, ‘Has CCAMLR worked? Management Policies and Ecological Needs’, International Challenges: Newsletter of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, vol. 10(1), (1990), p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Peter J. Beck, ‘A new polar factor in international relations’, The World Today, vol. 45(4), (1989), pp. 65–68.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jack Child, ‘Latin lebensraum: the geopolitics of Ibero-American Antarctica’, Applied Geography, vol.10 (4), (1990:in press); Gillian Triggs, ‘The Antarctic Treaty System: some jurisdictional problems’ in The Antarctic Treaty regime: law, environment and resources, G. Triggs (ed.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1987), pp. 98–104.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Beck, International Politics of Antarctica, pp.289-299; Peter J. Beck, ‘Antarctica at the UN 1988: seeking a bridge of understanding’, Polar Record, vol. 25(155), (1989), pp. 329–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gillian Triggs, International Law and Australian Sovereignty in Antarctica (Legal Books Pty, Sydney: 1986), p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Bruno Simma, ‘The Antarctic Treaty as a Treaty providing for an objective regime’, Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 19(2), (1986), pp. 189–209

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boleslaw A. Boczek, ‘The Legal Status of Visitors, including tourists, and non-governmental expeditions in Antarctica’, in Antarctic Challenge III: Conflicting Interests, Cooperation, Environmental Protection, Economic Development, R. Wolfrum (ed.) (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin: 1988), pp. 466–469

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gillian Triggs, ‘Australian sovereignty in Antarctica: traditional principles of territorial acquisition versus a ‘common heritage’’ in Australia’s Antarctic policy options, S. Harris (ed) (CRES, Canberra: 1984), p. 49

    Google Scholar 

  22. Patricia Birnie, ‘The Antarctic Regime and Third States’, in Antarctic Challenge II: Conflicting Interests, Cooperation, Environmental Protection, Economic Development, R. Wolfrum (ed.) (Dunker and Humblot, Berlin: 1986), pp. 239–262.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Final Report of the Review Meeting of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (FCO, London: 1988), p.4; Anne Marchai, ‘Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals: 1988 review of operations’, polar Record, vol. 25(153), (1989), pp. 142–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. R. Wyndham quoted in R. Wolfrum (ed), Antarctic Challenge: Conflicting Interests, Cooperation, Environmental Protection, Economic Development (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin: 1984), p. 115

    Google Scholar 

  25. Christopher C. Joyner, ‘The Evolving Antarctic Legal Regime: Review Article’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 83(3), (1989), p. 618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. C.C. Joyner, ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone and Antarctica: the dilemma of non-sovereign jurisdiction’, Ocean Development and International Law, vol. 19, (1988), pp. 469–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Francisco Orrego Vicuna, “The Effectiveness of the Decision-Making Machinery of CCAMLR: An Assessment”, paper at The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics Conference, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Oslo, May 1990, pp. 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jesper Grolin, ‘The Question of Antarctica and the Problem of Sovereignty’, International Relations, vol. IX(1), (1987), pp. 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Francisco Orrego Vicuna, ‘The Implementation of CCAMLR: is the decision-making machinery conducive to good management?’, International Challenges, vol. 10(1), (1990), p. 10

    Google Scholar 

  30. Barbara Mitchell, ‘The Antarctic Treaty: victim of its own success?’, Antarctic Politics and Marine Resources: Critical Choices for the 1980s, L.M. Alexander and L.C. Hanson (eds) (Center for Ocean Management Studies, Rhode Island: 1984), p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gillian Triggs, ‘The Antarctic Treaty Regime: a workable compromise or a purgatory of ambiguity?’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 17(2) (1985), p. 227.

    Google Scholar 

  32. M.J. de Wit, Minerals and Mining in Antarctica: science, technology, economics and politics (Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Peter J. Beck, ‘Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: a major addition to the Antarctic Treaty System’, Polar Record, vol. 25(152), (1989), pp. 19–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Beck, Convention on Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, p.29; Chilean government, Interpretative declaration on the Minerals Convention, 17 March 1989, p.3. There is a minority alternative view: S.K. Blay and B.M. Tsamenyi, ‘The Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: can a claimant veto it?’, Antarctic and Southern Ocean Law and Policy Occasional Papers 1 (University of Tasmania, Hobart: 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  35. P.J. Beck, ‘Australia’s new course in Antarctica’, Maritime Australia-Overseas Perspectives (Australian Centre for Maritime Studies, Canberra: in press 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  36. S.K. Blay and B.M. Tsamenyi, ‘Australia and the Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA)’, Polar Record, vol. 26 (158), (1990), pp. 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rainer Lagoni, ‘Antarctica’s mineral resources in international law’, Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 39(1), (1979), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Peter J. Beck, ‘British relations with Latin America: the Antarctic dimension’, in Britain and Latin America: a changing relationship, ed. V. Bulmer-Thomas (RIIA/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1989), p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gillian Triggs, quoted in House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, Report on Tourism in Antarctica (AGPS, Canberra: 1989), p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Paul Dibb, ‘Australia’s Strategic Interest in Antarctica’ in Harris, Australia’s Antarctic Policy Options, p. 132; Paul Dibb, Review of Australia’s Defence Capabilities (AGPS, Canberra: 1986), p. 37

    Google Scholar 

  41. D.W. Greig, ‘Territorial sovereignty and the status of Antarctica’, Australian Outlook, vol. 32(2), (1978), p. 129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ian Nicholson, ‘Antarctic Tourism: the need for a legal regime?’, Maritime Studies, vol. 29, (1986), p. 6

    Google Scholar 

  43. Peter J. Beck, ‘A Continent surrounded by-advice: recent reports on Antarctica’, Polar Record, vol. 24(151), (1988), pp. 288–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Robert Fox, Antarctica and the South Atlantic: Discovery, development and dispute (BBC, London: 1985), p. 76

    Google Scholar 

  45. Grahame Cook (ed), The future of Antarctica: exploitation versus preservation (Manchester University Press, Manchester: 1990), pp. 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Benedetto Conforti, ‘Territorial claims in Antarctica: a modern way to deal with an old problem’, Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 19(2), (1986), pp. 256–258.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Michael Akehurst, A Modern Introduction to International Law 6th. ed. (Allen and Unwin, London: 1987), pp. 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Human Sciences, Kingston Polytechnic, England

    Peter J. Beck Ph.D (Reader in International History)

Authors
  1. Peter J. Beck Ph.D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway

    Arnfinn Jørgensen-Dahl (Head, Polar Programme) & Willy Østreng (Director) (Head, Polar Programme) &  (Director)

Copyright information

© 1991 The Fridtjof Nansen Institute

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Beck, P.J. (1991). The Antarctic Resource Conventions Implemented: Consequences for the Sovereignty Issue. In: Jørgensen-Dahl, A., Østreng, W. (eds) The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12471-8_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation