Antarctic Treaty System An Assessment: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Beardmore South Field Camp, Antarctica, January 7-13, 1985 (1986) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7. Panel Discussion on the Legal and Political Background of the Antarctic Treaty
7. Panel Discussion on the Legal and Political Background of the Antarctic Treaty
Pages 77-84
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 77... ...
They discussed the origins of the treaty's modus vivendi, which, by neutralizing contracting parties' differing positions on the territorial status of Antarctica, preserved the demilitarization and denuclearization of Antarctica and international cooperation in scientific research there. Arthur Watts' paper focused on Article IV as the cornerstone of the Antarctic Treaty, and many participants agreed that the treaty's objectives would not have been achieved absent the spirit of compromise and cooperation exhibited by the contracting parties in dealing with their respective positions on territorial sovereignty.
|
From page 78... ...
Those holding this view argued that it would be impossible to renegotiate the disarmament and other provisions of the Antarctic Treaty in today's world. An attempt to do so could disrupt the compromise enshrined in Article IV, because it would not take account of claimant states' positions; this in turn could make it impossible to carry out the purposes of the Antarctic Treaty in securing peace and stability in the area and international cooperation in scientific research.
|
From page 79... ...
Another speaker questioned these conclusions, arguing that because continental shelf and eez rights flow from territorial sovereignty on land, they do involve sovereignty and could be construed as an enlargement of a claim to sovereignty under the Article IV(2) stipulation that "no new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present treaty is in force." This provoked a wider exchange of views, with some participants clearly regarding any such claims as a violation of Article IV, while others were of the opinion that Article IV does not preclude states with longstanding claims to Antarctica from now asserting their interests in the nature of eez or continental shelf rights.
|
From page 80... ...
For those not party to the treaty, activities that take place while the Antarctic Treaty is in force can be regarded by the claimant state carrying them out as enforcing its claim vis-a-vis countries that do not object. REMARKS BY FELIPE MACEDO DE SCARES GUIMARAES Soares stressed the value of Article IV in the context of the internationalization of Antarctica, since Article IV in his view not only internationalizes Antarctica but effectively puts to one side the alternative: the nationalization of Antarctica.
|
From page 81... ...
Consensus That consensus might become more difficult to obtain as more countries acquired decision-making rights under the Antarctic Treaty was acknowledged, but in general participants supported consensus as a workable procedure in multilateral and international forums. One participant noted that it is better than alternative voting systems because it does not create a disgruntled minority that feels discriminated against.
|
From page 82... ...
permits CP status for states other than original signatories to the treaty "during such time as that contracting party demonstrates its interest in Antarctica by conducting substantial scientific research activity there, such as the establishment of a scientific station or the despatch of a scientific expedition."] Second, any state that is a member of the U.N.
|
From page 83... ...
The questioner drew attention to Article VIII, which specifies that each contracting party exercise sole jurisdiction over its nationals designated to carry out inspections and those conducting scientific research and their staffs. He asked whether the right of a claimant state to exercise jurisdiction in such situations would not be contrary to
|
From page 84... ...
He added, however, that in relation to a number of subjects not expressly covered in the treaty, actions by states could cause controversy over the exercise of sovereignty in Antarctica.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.