A Continent for Peace and Science: from the 6Th International Geographical Congress to the Antarctic Treaty (1895-1961)

6 Encontro ABRI Perspectivas sobre o poder em um mundo em redefinição 25 a 28 de julho 2017 – Belo Horizonte

Workshop Doutoral: Instituções e Regímenes Internacionais A CONTINENT FOR PEACE AND SCIENCE: FROM THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL CONGRESS TO THE ANTARCTIC TREATY (1895-1961) – RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Ignacio Javier Cardone Instituto de Relações Internacionais – Universidade de São Paulo

RESUMO

Na atualidade a Antártida pode ser considerada um continente reservado à paz e à ciência e, em grande parte, à conservação natural e ambiental. Mas essa não foi a história da Antártica na primeira metade do século 20, quando o continente branco foi cenário de intensos conflitos entre algumas nações que competiram com o objeto de estabelecer bases para suas ambições territoriais. Se essa competição levou a uma era pacífica de cooperação internacional na promoção da ciência antártica, foi graças à criação do regime do Tratado Antártico, que reservou o uso do continente de acordo com os princípios estabelecidos no Tratado Antártico de 1959. Entender o por quê e como o continente branco acabou sendo reservado para uso pacífico, investigação científica e cooperação internacional, é o objetivo da pesquisa da presente proposta. Mesmo quando existe uma extensa literatura que trata do regime do Tratado Antártico, a maior parte dela centra sua atenção na evolução do próprio regime e, quando dedicada à análise do período anterior, geralmente limita o alcance a eventos específicos. A formação do regime do Tratado Antártico tem sido normalmente explicada através de uma análise realista que destacou o papel dos EUA e da URSS na promoção do acordo, mas negligenciou outros importantes atores e variáveis. O envolvimento da comunidade científica no projeto do Tratado Antártico foi explicado apenas pela influência do Ano Geofísico Internacional de 1957-8 (IGY), não reconhecendo um processo mais amplo e duradouro de envolvimento científico em questões antárticas que poderia ser rastreado até a virada do século XX e que parecia ter deixado marcas importantes no próprio Tratado. Outros fatores importantes, como a influência do imperialismo e do nacionalismo, foram analisados através de importantes escritos históricos. No entanto, uma abordagem mais abrangente é necessária para entender como foi possível chegar a um acordo - ou pelo menos suspender - os conflitos territoriais, reservando todo o continente para uso pacífico e pesquisa científica; compromisso que tem durado por mais de 55 anos e se mantém na atualidade. Consistentemente com o chamado pluralista que tem aparecido em setores relevantes da academia de RI, sustentamos que a história dos assuntos antárticos não pode ser entendida a partir de uma perspectiva mono-causal. Assim, as relações internacionais relacionadas com a Antártida devem ser abordadas levando em consideração múltiplos níveis e dimensões de análise, conformando uma explicação multi-causal, mais consistente com a perspectiva da Sociología Histórica. Suportaremos que, apesar de outros fatores - como a distribuição de poder e interesses econômicos - serem relevantes e determinantes; O desenho final que o regime antártico adotou, reservando o continente apenas para fins pacíficos e para a investigação científica, não pode ser entendido sem levar em consideração o papel que a Ciência tem desempenhado ao longo do processo de formação dos assuntos antárticos. Para cumprir esse objetivo, aplicaremos um processo de process tracing das relações antárticas anteriores à ratificação do Tratado Antártico, de 1895 a 1961. O ano de 1895 poderia ser considerado como o ponto em que a Antártida entrou na agenda internacional, enquanto que em 1961 marca o início do regime do Tratado Antártico, através da sua entrada em vigor. Ao longo dessa análise, estabeleceremos em que momentos e até que ponto, cada dimensão da análise - geopolítica, política, econômica, ideológica, etc. - foi determinante na formação dos assuntos antárticos e como contribuiu para o arranjo final da Regime do Tratado Antárctico. Seguindo essa finalidade, a pesquisa fará uso, além da literatura especializada, de fontes primarias disponíveis nos arquivos documentais de diversos países que estiveram envolvidos nesse processo, tais como The National Archives dos Estados Unidos, o National Archives e the Scott Polar Research Institute da Grã Bretanha, o arquivo do Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto de la República Argentina, o Archivo General Histórico del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile, o Alfred Wegener Institut e Das Bundesarchiv da Alemanha, e o National Archives da Australia, entre outros.

Palavras Chave: Antártida - Tratado Antártico - Diplomacia Científica

Introduction Today, Antarctica can be regarded as a continent reserved to peace and science and, in most extent, to natural and environmental conservation. But that was not the history of Antarctica on the first half of the 20th Century, when the white continent was the edge of intense conflicts between a few nations that competed to gain basis for their territorial ambitions. If that competition led to a peaceful era of international cooperation in promotion of Antarctic science, it was due to the creation of the Antarctic Treaty regime, which successfully managed the use of the Continent in line with those principles established on the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. To understand why and how the white continent ended up being reserved to peaceful use, scientific investigation and international cooperation, is the objective of the research proposed here. Even when there is an extensive literature that deals with the Antarctic Treaty regime, the most of it center its attention into the evolution of the regime itself, and when devoted to the analysis of the previous period, it usually limits the scope to specific events. The Antarctic Treaty regime formation has been usually explained through realist analysis that highlighted the role of the USA and USSR on fostering the agreement, but neglected other important actors and variables. The involvement of scientific community on the AT design has been accounted only through the influence of the 1957-8 International Geophysical Year (IGY), didn’t recognizing a more broad and lingering process of scientific involvement in Antarctic issues that could be traced down to the turn of the 20th Century, and that seemed to have left important marks on the Treaty itself. Other important factors, such as the influence of imperialism and nationalism, have been analyzed through prominent historical writings. Nonetheless, a more encompassing and comprehensive approach is needed in order to understand how was posible to come into terms — or at least suspend— the territorial conflicts, reserving the whole continent to peaceful use and scientific research; a compromise that has successfully lasted for more than 55 years. Consistently with the pluralistic call that has aroused on prominent sectors of current IR academics,1 we sustain that the history of Antarctic affairs cannot be understood from a single relevant factor perspective. Thus, the international relations related to Antarctica must be addressed taking into consideration multiple levels and dimensions of analysis, conforming a multi-causal explanation. We will sustain that, despite other factors —such as the distribution of power and economic interests— being relevant and determinant; the final design that the Antarctic regime adopted, reserving the continent for peaceful purposes only and to scientific investigation, cannot be understood without taking into consideration the role that Science2 has played along the process of shaping of the Antarctic affairs.

1 See for example: Bennett, 2013; Dunne, Hansen & Wight, 2013; Lake 2011 & 2013; Lebow, 2014; Mearsheimer & Walt, 2013; Reus- Smit, 2013 2 We use the term ‘Science’ for simplification of exposition only. A detailed account on how to interpret that generic concept is given on the section on Research Design.

In order to fulfill that aim, we will apply a process tracing3 of the Antarctic history previous to the Antarctic Treaty ratification, from 1895 to 1961. The year of 1895 could be regarded as the point in which Antarctica entered into the international agenda,4 while 1961 marks the beginning of the Antarctic Treaty regime, through its enter into force. Throughout that analysis, we will establish in which moments and to what extent, each dimension of analysis —geo-political, political, economic, ideological, etc.— was determinant on shaping the Antarctic affairs and how it contributed to the final arrangement of the Antarctic Treaty regime. On the following, we will present our proposal structured on three parts. One the first section we present the epistemological and theoretical debate that sustain our methodological position. On the second section we address the state of the art on the Antarctic studies referred to the period included on our research. On the third and final section we present the research design with more detail.

1. Epistemological and Theoretical Discussion The present proposal adopt an interpretativist, pluralistic 5 approach informed on the Historical Sociology. Therefore, no single theory will be applied as a way to support or contradict their predictions, but as a source of concepts with heuristic utility6. That differentiate the present proposal from the mainstream of the discipline and from already made attempts to explain the Antarctic regime formation.7 The positivist International Relations8 (IR) mainstream has characterized the discipline for most part of its institutionalized history.9 The idea that IR as a scientific discipline could find an objective and neutral approach to identify relevant ‘facts’ and lead to a knowledge with universal applicability, fueled the impulse of most of the field for more than 50 years. Fostered by the behavioralist influence on the social sciences, particularly on the US, much of the IR research adopted an hypothetical-deductive model as the only valid model of scientific research, indirectly leading to a growing emphasis on quantitativism through mathematical modeling,10 on the intend to emulate the path taken by the study of economics. The corollary of that position has been that of trying to establish law-type explanations of international phenomena, as a way to construct efficient explanations that could helps us to predict the course of international events.

3 About Process Tracing, See: Checkel, 2008 & Collier, 2011 4 Turney, 2012; Villa, 2004. 5 Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013:416. 6 Weber, 1997. 7 More on this on the second section. 8 Conventionally, we will use upper case to designate the scientific discipline and lower case to designate the relations between states. 9 By ‘institutionalized history’ we are referring to the constitution as a scientific discipline. 10 For a critique to such practice on IR, see: Mearsheimer & Walt, op cit.

However dominant, that approach to scientific practice has been strongly contested, not only on IR, but also on other social sciences.11 The idea of the scientific practice as a confrontation between paradigms for the monopoly of explanation on a determined dimension of social reality, has been strongly contested on several fields of social inquiry, including IR.12 As Lebow13 has demonstrated, not even the ‘hard sciences’ such as Physics, behave accordingly to the positivist ideal of fully-fledged theories. Additionally, as Weber stated on its contribution to the Methodenstreit14 more than a hundred years ago, the ideal of predictive capacity is not adequate to natural events on contingent conditions.15 Thus, both, the use of multiple causes, as well as the consideration of contingency, are necessary to give a reasonable account of historical events.16 As Lebow expressed: ‘Mechanisms and processes operate in contexts, and these contexts determine the effects they have’,17 which does not prevent us to identify patterns or regularities that could help us to interpret the international affairs from a theoretical perspective. That led us to invert the logic proposed by the IR positivist mainstream: instead of using history in order to prove or disprove a certain theory,18 we consider theoretical concepts as tools to understand history, which will be the object under scrutiny. In line with Weber’s concept of ideal types, we will understand theories as analytical constructs that provide us with ideal concepts that unilaterally highlight some meaningful dimension of social reality. 19 That implies that the interpretation of a historical event could combine different kind of explanations. 20 On IR in particular, to sustain that ideology has an impact on foreign policy, does not necessarily means that ‘material’ capabilities distribution —in the way understood by neorealism— have not. Cognitive dimensions could be more important in some moments than others, as a consequence of contingency. Furthermore, ideology could have important —or not so important, depending on contingency— effects on the way in which material capabilities are interpreted and used by the actors involved.21 Consequently, that prevent us to locate ourselves on what has been classified as the theoretical debate on IR, as we will be making use of theoretical concepts developed by

11 For a critique on Economics, see for example: Albarracin & Cardone, 2009 & Blaug, 1998. 12 Lake op cit; Lebow, op cit. 13 Lebow, op cit. 14 Methodenstreit or ‘dispute over methodology’, was a debate that divided the German Historical School from the disciples of the abstract thought of Menger on Economy, in Germany at the final decades of the 19th Century’s. 15 Weber, 1985. 16 For a path dependence approach informed on this position see: Goldstone, 1998 and Mahoney, 2000. 17 Lebow, op cit: p.44. 18 That is, for example, the logic followed by Allison and Zelikow, 1999 and Peterson, 1988. 19 Weber, 1997. 20 This must not be interpreted as a ‘free pass’ to unrigorous and unsystematic analysis. Empirical evidence should be assessed on a rigorous and systematic fashion against the predicted path of events in order to obtain conclusions about the forces that effectively took place. 21 What we are trying to stress here is that material capabilities effective impact depends on both, contingent determinants, and perceptions and knowledge by actors. Accordingly, none of those dimensions by itself can fully explain an international event.

diverse theories.22 That would not mean that all theories will hold the same explanatory power, but that that comprehensive framework will assist us on assessing at which moment, to what extent and in which context, a particular dimension played a relevant role on shaping the Antarctic history. In other considerations, we will make use of the ‘structurationist’ theory developed by Giddens23, but in a different way that that used by Wendt. That difference is based on our rejection of the ‘scientific realism’ ontology24, strongly supported by the latter25. Thus, we will understand international relations as social relations that characterize determined social structures. Those structures were instantiated by international actions that reference to different context of ‘distantiation’. That allow us to analyze those structures as constituting diverse structural levels that are intertwined through the social actions of actors, justifying our multi-level approach.

2. State of the Art on Antarctic Studies of the First Half of the 20th Century Antarctica has not be one of the most popular topics on IR analyses. Besides some prominent exceptions —particularly on specialized institutions— Libraries are not well supplied with academic literature related to Antarctic politics. However, the Antarctic affairs have been addressed by some IR scholars, as well as by specialists from other disciplines, such as Anthropology, Geography, History, International Law and Tourism; just to name a few. In some countries, the academic literature on the issue is combined with political positions, making it hard to distinguish between both kind of works.26 Nonetheless, the literature about Antarctic affairs has been recently growing not only in number, but also in quality of analysis and sources of information.27 As stated on the introduction, most of the analysis about Antarctic politics are directed to the Antarctic regime and its evolution, particularly to the challenges and changes that the regime has experimented thorough its ruling of the white continent.28 The period previous to the Antarctic Treaty has been addressed through the analysis of specific events or dimensions. Some Historians, such as Peter Beck,29 have directed its analysis to an extended period, emphasizing

22 As explained before, the positivist approach to scientific practice understood that theories were incompatible by principle, which means that if a theory holds explanatory power, the other should not. We consider that social theories and, in particular, IR theories, are not incompatible, but highlight different dimensions and logics of international behaviour. 23 Giddens, 1984. 24 We do also reject relativism and instrumentalism. For us the theoretical concepts do refer to a ‘material’ reality (in the loose sense of ‘material’) but they do not need to represent an ontological ‘element’. That is to say that concepts are merely analytical constructs to make reality intelligible. They are not instrumental in the way elaborated by Friedman, but neither they are correspondent to objective separate ‘entities’. 25 See: Wendt, 1987 & 1992 26 We are aware that this is a common feature on almost every political issue. However, in some countries with territorial claims over Antarctica, such as Argentina and Chile, this characteristic has been really predominant, at least for most part of the 20th century. 27 Some institutional interfaces such as the Humanities and Social Sciences Expert Group (HASSEG) of the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR) have been truly important in promoting interchanges between social scientist working with Antarctic issues. 28 See for example: Colacrai, 1998, 2003, 2004; Dodds, 2010; Hemmings, 2005, 2012; Joyner, 1998; Stokke & Vidas, 1996; Triggs, 1987; and Villa, 2004. 29 Beck, 1986 and 1988.

the role of the two superpowers on fostering an international agreement over the white continent; or, as Adrian Howkins30, some domestic ideological factors, such as the British imperialism and Latin-American nationalism, as responsible of hindering any potential understanding between the British, and Argentina and Chile. Others have addressed particular countries policies, such as Irina Gan31 on the USSR involvement; Jason Moore32 on US Antarctic policy; or John Dudeney and David Walton33 on the British policy behind Operation Tabarin. Other historians have directed their interest to shorter periods of time or to specific events, such as Dian Olson Belanger34 over the US operation Deepfreeze during the International Geophysical Year; Pablo Fontana35 on the conflict between Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom between the end of the 1930’s and 1955;36 and Chris Turney,37 who wrote about the history of the competition to reach the south pole on the first and second decades of the 20th Century. By its part, historians of Science have developed important and well sounded studies on the international cooperation on polar research and the international efforts behind the International Polar Years and the International Geophysical Year, such as the works of Rip Bulkeley,38 Fae Korsmo,39 Cornelia Lüdecke,40 Brandon Luedtke41 and Colin Summerhayes.42 Geography related scholars, such as Klaus Dodds,43 Christy Collis,44 Simon Naylor, Martin Siegert, Katrina Dean and Simone Turchetti,45 have devoted their analysis to the geopolitical dimension of the Antarctic problematique and, particularly, to a geopolitical analysis of the influence of the International Geophysical Year. On the IR realm, the most systematic analysis of the period is included on Managing the Frozen South, from M. J. Peterson.46 Even when Peterson’s book is mainly aimed to describe the changes on the Antarctic regime, the book devotes three chapters (2, 3 and 4) to the process of regime creation, developing a well theoretically and empirically grounded analysis. However, the way in which the autor make use of different theories of IR —using the historical case as a

30 Howkins, 2008. 31 Gan, 2010 & 2011. 32 Moore, 1999; 2001a; 2001b & 2004 33 Dudeney & Walton, 2012. 34 Belanger, 2006. 35 Fontana, 2014. 36 In fact, the book is centered on Argentina’s Antarctic policy and encompass from the beginning of the 20th century to the signature of the Antarctic Treaty. Despite of that, the focus of the book is on the conflict between those three countries, which presents its higher peak between 1940 and 1955. 37 Turney, op cit. 38 Bulkeley, 2010. 39 Korsmo, 2007. 40 Lüdecke, 2003 & 2004. 41 Luedtke, 2011 42 Summerhayes, 2008. 43 Dodds & Collis, 2008; Dodds, 2010. 44 Dodds & Collis, op cit. 45 Nylor et al, 2008. 46 Peterson, 1988.

prove/disprove source— prevent him from a more complex and comprehensive analysis, which could have combined different kind of explanations altogether. Our proposal is directed precisely to present a theoretically-laden, systematic analysis of the Antarctic international relations previous to the Antarctic Treaty regime. It pulls away from previous attempts to explain that period in that it will encompass multiple levels and dimensions of analysis from a systematic perspective. It will differentiate its assessments from Peterson work in that it will be centered on the influence of ‘Science’, as well as it will not present a contend between different theories as alternative explanations, but it will combine theoretical concepts in order to give a more comprehensive account of the events and forces in place. In the next section we present the proposed design to fulfill that task.

3. Research Design and Scope As stated on our introductory section, our research is guided by the question of Why and How the white continent ended up being reserved to peaceful use, scientific investigation and international cooperation. That frame our research on the period previous to the formation of the Antarctic regime, from the 6th International Geographical Congress of London, 1895 to the Antarctic Treaty enter into force in 1961. The 6th International Geographical Congress was chosen, due to the call that a prominent sector of the scientific community made to western European governments, in order to explore what was considered at that time as ‘…the greatest piece of geographical exploration still to be undertaken.’47 Even when some calls for international cooperation were made previous to that event,48 the reach of the call for exploring the white continent in 1895 seems to have had more profound repercussions and resulted in effective actions, which was not the case on the previous attempts. The choice for the ratification of the Antarctic Treaty (AT) followed the consideration that the entry into force of the AT signalled the end of an era and the beginning of a new institutionalized framework on Antarctica. Even when that delimitation is merely analytical, and could be considered that previous event —such as the International Geophysical Year or the Antarctic Treaty signature— were more relevant in signalling a change in Antarctic politics that the ratification itself, the process of ratification included an accommodation of domestic interests that would be relevant for the analysis through IR lenses. In order to answer that question, we will track down several dimensions at multiple levels of analysis, following the hypothesis that, despite other factors —such as the distribution of power and economic interests— being relevant and determinant; the final design that the Antarctic regime adopted, reserving the continent for peaceful purposes only and to scientific investigation,

47 Anon, 1896: p.780 48 Previous calls for governmental intervention on Antarctic exploration and international cooperation could be found in US Lt. Matthew Maury in 1860-61 (See: Beck, 1986) and prominent scientific figures such as Georg von Neumayer and Karl Weyprecht a few years later (See: Lüdecke, 2003 & 2004; & Summerhayes, 2008).

cannot be understood without taking into consideration the role that Science has played along the process of shaping of Antarctic affairs. Nonetheless, our research will not be aimed to the solely purpose to ratify or falsify that hypothesis, but also to provide with a broad, rigorous and systematic approach to the whole process. On other considerations, we can observe that the concept of ‘Science’ as used on the proposed hypothesis includes different levels of analysis and types of elements. As stated above, the use of the generic concept ‘Science’ responds to a purpose of simplification of exposition and not to any ontological assumption. In our analysis we will distinguish between scientists, scientific institutions, and scientific community; as well as between the ideal and values associated with Science, the social practice regarded as scientific research, and the knowledge produced through such practice. In particular, we will be interested on identifying the way in which 'science' worked as a conceptual frame for international politics, and how changes on the discourse around the ‘value of science’ influenced the international practice. Accordingly with was presented on the first section, we will make use of theoretical concepts from various theories in order to provide a more complete account of the process. Concepts such as ‘power capabilities’ and ‘balance of power’ will be used to assess the geo-strategic dimension on the global and Antarctic structural levels of analysis. That will allow us to address the issue of how countries perceived and behave accordingly to what was conceived as a potential menace to the global and Antarctic relative position, in which particular moments, and why. The bargaining

TABLE 1: Levels of Analysis and Actors Global System Antarctic System Domestic

* Nation-State * Nation-State * International Antarctic International Political Institutions Institutions * * Political Institutions (Government) * International Scientific * International Antarctic Scientific Actors Institutions Institutions * Scientific Institutions Domestic Companies * trans-national global Companies * trans-national ‘Antarctic’ * Companies * Epistemic Global Communities * Epistemic Antarctic communities

models of rational-functionalist theories49 will be helpful on interpreting the relations of coordination and alliances that were woven on different moments and accordingly to different interest —being economic, strategic, political or ideological— on all levels of analysis. More sociological cognitive concepts, such as identity, leadership and normative entrepreneurship will be useful to analyze the ideologic and sociological dimension involved at different moments. In particular, the concept of epistemic community 50 will be pivotal to understand how the scientific practice and

49 Martin and Simmons, 2012. 50 Hass, 1992.

epistemology, as well as sociological aspects of it, exerted influence over the Antarctic international relations. Thus, our analytical framework will include a multi-level analysis that will comprise: i)the Global System, understood as a structural encompassing dimension; ii)the Antarctic System, which includes the structural regional dimension51 demarcated by actions referred to the Antarctic region;52 and iii)the domestic level, which includes the internal domestic agents and dynamics. TABLE 1 shows the levels of analysis and actors included in each level. Additionally, the study will analyze several dimensions, such as: i)the power or geo-strategic dimension, relative to the distribution of strategic capabilities, the social structured perceptions (such as if an actions is seen as aggressive, defensive or neutral) and the dynamics relative to the balancing of power; ii)the political dimension, relative to the diplomatic structures, the dynamics of alliances, and the political influence of social ‘epistemic’ groups; iii)the economic dimension, relative to economic institutions and forces, the allocation of economic resources, and the pretension and execution of regulatory functions; iv)the ideological dimension, relative to identities, cleavages, and mobilization capabilities; and v)the Scientific/Knowledge dimension, related to the knowledge requirements, the allocation of scientific knowledge and expertise, the scientific social dynamics and the changes experimented on the epistemological approximation to knowledge. The multi-dimensional analysis will be directed to establish at which moment each dimension played a relevant role on Antarctic international relations. A combination of the dimensions and levels of analysis is summarized on TABLE 2, which presents a matrix of Analysis that will be used on classifying and analyzing the empirical material. In reference to the empirical material, archives registries would be the primary source of information, complemented by relevant bibliography on the period. The documentary research presents a special challenge for the research as the sources are dispar and heterogeneous, making an extensive prospective research necessary to deal with potential biases and to extend the triangulation of information as much as possible. Fortunately, much of the documentation is catalogued and registered on national respective archives, at least on respect to governmental level. Other archives such as the archives of Scientific Organizations and Institutions will also be consulted. In order to accomplish a relevant retrieval of information, the research is planned to do research visits to Archives of several countries involved on the Antarctic international relations on the period under study. Those countries involve the twelve original signatories: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom,

51 Our approach is different from that of Buzan & Wæver (2003: p.51 and further). Our ‘regional’ structural level is not determined physically, as in the case of Buzan & Weber, but referentially, that is, by the consideration of around what reference those structures have been constructed. That arise from a differential concept of structure and power. 52 The actions not need to have been developed ‘in’ the Antarctic region, but merely be directed to affect some international dimension of Antarctica. A public declaration in a determined country is a domestic action, but is directed to affect Antarctica in some way, and for that reason we should consider it as being part of an ‘Antarctic’ action.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America; and Germany, which was intensively involved on the period of 1938-39 and exerted a relevant influence on the Antarctic international relations. As the research has identified so far, some archives that are intended to be used as sources of documentary registries are listed on the following TABLE 3.

TABLE 2: Matrix of Analysis Global System Antarctic System Domestic

Defence and Security. Relative Relative power of different agencies: Relative positioning at Antarctica. positioning. Structured strategic militar, scientific, etc. Structured Strategic regional dynamic. Geo-strategic dynamics (balancing). Social institutional logics and resources. Structured Perceptions. structured perceptions. Domestic perceptions.

Imperial and Nationalistic Claims. Diplomatic Structures. Confidence Issue-specific Alliances. Specific Public Opinion Pressure. Domestic and Alliances. Global Science Diplomatic Structures. Antarctic Political Political Involvement of Scientific Diplomacy. Science Diplomacy. Community.

Global Economic Social Institutions. Antarctic Economic Social Global Market Forces. International Institutions. Regional Market Forces. Allocation of Resources. International Regional Allocation of Resources. Economic Resources and Economic Regulatory Functions. Scientific Regional Regulatory Functions and Development Considerations. involvement on assesing economic scientific involvement on providing variables information.

Globally Structured Identities Regionally (Antarctic) Structured (Nationalism, Imperialism) and Domestic Identities and Cleavages and Identities. Antarctic Awareness and Cleavages (Communism, Liberalism). their Respective Mobilization Ideological Antarctic Identity. Antarctic Related Globally Structured Cultural Capability. Mobilization Capabilities Mobilization Capabilities.

Global Scientific Knowledge Antarctic Specific Scientific Requirements. Global Knowledge Knowledge Requirements. Antarctic National Scientific Resources and allocation (accumulation and Knowledge allocation. Antarctic Scientific/Kno Stage of Development. Scientific expertise) Global International International Scientific Social Interests. Scientific Social Dynamic. wledge Scientific Social Dynamics. Global Dynamics. Antarctic Level Level Epistemological Changes. Epistemological Developments.

As main outputs of the research, the proposal expects to: a) construct a periodisation of Antarctic international relations between 1895 and 1961 relevant to the IR theory; b) Identify actors and interest involved on shaping the Antarctic politics in that period; c) Classify positions, alliances and strategy of those actors; d) Identify and categorise values and ideals related with Antarctica; e) Understand the domestic dynamics of the States involved and f) Understand the dynamics at structural levels, particularly identifying the influences of systemic pressures over the Antarctic reality.

TABLE 3: Documentary Sources

COUNTRY ARCHIVE INSTITUTION

Archivo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto ARGENTINA Departamento de Estudios Históricos Navales de la Armada de la República Argentina

AUSTRALIA National Archives of Australia

CHILE Archivo General Histórico del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile

Alfred Wegener Institut GERMANY Das Bundesarchiv

NEW ZEALAND Archives New Zealand

Norks Polarinstitutt NORWAY Hvalfangstmuseet

The National Archives

Scott Polar Research Institute UNITED KINGDOM the British Antarctic Survey

Royal Geographical Society

The National Archives (Washington and College Park) UNITED STATES The National Academy of Sciences

References and General Bibliography Adler, Emanuel and Peter M. Haas. 1992. “Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program.” International Organization 46(01):367. Albarracín, D. Cardone, I. 2009. “Teoría Económica e Historia: La Posición Weberiana, una Mirada que Conserva Actualidad.” Anuario 2009. Trelew: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas - Universidad de la Patagonia San Juan Bosco. Allison, G. & Zelikow, P. 1999. The Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman. Anon. 1896. “Report of the Sixth International Geographical Congress.” London: William Clowes and Sons Ltd. Beck, Peter. 1986. The International Politics of Antarctica. Routledge Revivals. Beck, Peter. 1988. A Antártida como uma irrelevância estratégica? [tradução de Maura Ávila] Contexto Internacional. PUC-Rio, Instituto das Relações Internacionais (IRI). Rio de Janeiro: Vol. 7, ano 4: 63-83. Belanger, Dian Olson. 2006. Deep Freeze: The United States, the International Geophysical Year, and the Origins of Antarctica’s Age of Science. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Bennett, A. 2013. “The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in International Relations theory.” European Journal of International Relations. 19(3):459-481. Blaug, M. 1998. “The problems with formalism: Interview with Mark Blaug.” Challenge, mayo-junio 1998. Bulkeley, R. 2010. The political origins of the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Record, 46(1), 9–11. Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge Studies in International Relations (Vol. 91). Cambridge University Press. Chekel, J. I. 2008. Process Tracing In: Klotz, A. and Prakash, D. (Eds.) Qualitative Methods in International Relations: a pluralistic guide. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, Cap. 8. Colacrai, Myriam. 1998. El Ártico y la Antártida. Su rol en las Relaciones Internacionales. Su relevancia desde la perspectiva ambiental. Rosario: Centro de Estudios en Relaciones Internacionales de Rosario (CERIR) - Centro de Estudios Canadienses de Rosario (CECAR). Colacrai, Myriam. 2003. Reflexiones en torno al Régimen Antártico y las relaciones argentino chilenas. Cuadernos de Política Exterior Argentina. Rosario: Centro de Estudios en Relaciones Internacionales de Rosario (CERIR) 73: 1-36. Colacrai, Myriam. 2004. El Ártico y la Antártida en las relaciones internacionales. Porto Alegre: Ed. UFRGS. Collier, D. 2011. Understanding Process Tracing. P.S. – Political Science and Politics 44 (4):823- 830. Collis, Christy and Klaus Dodds. 2008. “Assault on the Unknown: The Historical and Political Geographies of the International Geophysical Year (1957-8).” Journal of Historical Geography 34(4):555–73. Doods, Klaus. 2010. “Governing Antarctica: Contemporary Challenges and the Enduring Legacy of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.” Global Policy 1 (1):108-115. Dudeney, John R. and David W. H. Walton. 2012. “From Scotia to ‘Operation Tabarin’: Developing British Policy for Antarctica.” Polar Record 48(04):342–60. Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. 2013. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19(3):405–25.

Fontana, Pablo. 2014. La Pugna Antártica: El Conflicto Por El Sexto Continente. Buenos Aires: Guazuvirá Ediciones. Gan, Irina. 2010. “Soviet Antarctic Plans after the International Geophysical Year: Changes in Policy.” Polar Record 46(238):244–56. Gan, I. 2011. “The first practical Soviet steps towards getting a foothold in the Antarctic”: the Soviet Antarctic whaling flotilla Slava. Polar Record, 47(240), 21–28. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society. 1984. Polity. Goldstone, Jack a. 1998. “Initial Conditions, General Laws, Path Dependence, and Explanation in Historical Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 104(3):829–45. Gross Stein, J. 1989. Getting to the Table: The triggers, stages, functions, and consequences of prenegotiation. International Journal 34 (2):475-504. Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Epistemic Communities Introduction : Policy Coordination and International.” International Organization 46(1):1–35. Hemmings, A. D. and Rogan-Finnemore, M. 2005. “Antarctic Bioprospecting.” Christchurch: Gateway Antarctica Special Publications Series 501. Hemmings, A. D. Rothwell D. R. and Scott K. N. 2012. Antarctic Security in the Twenty-First Century: Legal and policy perspectives. Routledge. Howkins, Adrian. 2008. “Frozen Empires: A History of the Antarctic Sovereignty Dispute Between Britain, Argentina, and Chile, 1939-1959.” Faculty of the Graduate School PhD. Jacobson, M. 2011. Building the International Legal Framework for Antarctica. In: Berkman, P. A. et alia. Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press:1-16. Joyner, C. 1998. Governing the frozen commons. the Antarctic regime and environmental protection. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Korsmo, Fae L. 2007. “The Birth of the International Geophysical Year.” The Leading Edge. Lake, D. A. 2011. “Why “isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress.” International Studies Quarterly, 55(2):465–480. Lake, D. 2013. “Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations. 19(3):567-587. Lebow, Richard Ned. 2014. “Constructing Cause in international relations.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lüdecke, Cornelia. 2003. “Scientific Collaboration in Antarctica (1901–04): A Challenge in Times of Political Rivalry.” Polar Record 39(1):35–48. Lüdecke, Cornelia. 2004. The First International Polar Year ( 1882-83 ): A big science experiment with small science equipment. History of Science, 1(September 1873). Luedtke, Brandon. 2011. “Dividing Antarctica : The Work of the Seventh International Geographical Congress in Berlin 1899.” Polarforschung 3(80):173–80. Martin, L. Simmons, B. 2012. International Organization and Institutions. In: Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B. (Eds.) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage: Cap. 13. Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29(4):507–48. Mearsheimer J. J. and Walt, S. M. 2013. “Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations. 19(3): 427-457. Moore, J. K. 1999. Tethered to an iceberg : United States policy toward the Antarctic , 1939-1949, 35(193), 125–134.

Moore, J. K. 2001a. A ’ sort ’ of self-denial : United States policy toward the Antarctic , 1950-59, 37(200), 13–26. Moore, J. K. 2001b. Maritime Rivalry, Political Intervention and the Race to Antarctica: US-Chilean Relations, 1939-1949. Journal of Latin American Studies, 33(June 2002), 713–738. Moore, J. K. 2004. Bungled publicity: Little America, big America, and the rationale for non- claimancy, 194661. Polar Record, 40(1). Naylor, Simon et al. 2008. “Science, geopolitics and the governance of Antarctica.” Nature Geoscience: 3 (1):143-145. Peterson, M. J. 1988. Managing the Frozen South: The Creation and Evolution of the Antarctic Treaty System. University of California Press. Reus-Smit, C. 2013. “Beyond metatheory?” European Journal of International Relations. 19(3): 589-608. Stokke, O. and Vidas, E. 1996. Governing the Antarctic: the Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:91-110. Summerhayes, Colin P. 2008. “International Collaboration in Antarctica: The International Polar Years, the International Geophysical Year, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.” Polar Record 44(04):321–34. Triggs, Gilliam (Ed.). 1987. The Antarctic Treaty Regime: Law, Environment and Resources. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turney, Chris. 2012. “1912 The Year the World Discovered Antarctica.” Villa, Rafael Antonio Duarte. 2004. A Antártida No Sistema Internacional. São Paulo: Hucitec. Weber, Max. 1985. El Problema de La Irracionalidad En Las Ciencias Sociales. Madrid: Tecnos. Weber, Max. 1997. Economía Y Sociedad. México D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Wendt, Alexander. 1987. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.