DOCSLIB.ORG

Origin and Limitations of the Antarctic Treaty Aant Elzinga

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Origin and Limitations of the Antarctic Treaty Aant Elzinga Origin and Limitations of the Antarctic Treaty Aant Elzinga INTRODUCTION As a philosopher and historian of science it strikes me how two mutually op- posite kinds of retrospective accounts of the emergence of the Antarctic Treaty have evolved. There is the naive view, according to which the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and the Antarctic Treat (AT) simply succeeded because politics was entirely set to one side. And there is the cynical view, according to which both the IGY and the advent of the AT were a matter of politics all the way. Both of these views are untenable. Instead, I want to argue for a critical realist perspective that focuses on both the science and its geopolitical context. THE DUAL FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN THE ANTARCTIC TREATY As cold war archives have opened, recent scholarship has shown that there was a great deal more politics behind the scenes than we were previously told. However, on some basic issues differences were successfully set aside or frozen, and fundamental principles were agreed upon: the question of claims (sovereign neutrality), the question of carrying out atomic tests (prohibited), demilitariza- tion, and the use of science as a criterion for full participation in the manage- ment regime that was set up. It was not because of the application of altruism that this was possible. On the contrary, national interests and agendas were still there, but the extreme cost of the alternative, perpetuating conflict, was too great. Thus, realism, pragmatism, and willingness to compromise on the basis of mutual benefit were the effective principles at work. The AT involves a mechanism of inclusion/exclusion based on scientific per- formance. Performing substantial scientific research as an entry ticket for new Aant Elzinga, Department of Philosophy, countries to manifest their presence and participate in the management of the Linguistics and Theory of Science, University Antarctic continent’s future is key. I call this the sublimation of politics in sci- of Gothenburg, Box 200, SE-405 30 Gothen- ence. Science has a dual function, both advancing new knowledge and mani- burg, Sweden. Correspondence: Aant.Elzinga@ festing a country’s serious interest and presence. Politics in this context is not a theorysc.gu.se. bad thing, but rather a good thing, an incentive to do good research that will, 60 • SCIENCE DIPLOMACY in turn, give a country clout at the decision- making table. the statutes of the International Polar Commission (IPC) of The success of the AT lies in the fact that it gave science 1908, which Lüdecke (this volume) considers an important a dual function, including its status as a kind of symbolic episode in the history of Antarctic research and explora- capital in a political arena, an arm’s-length function that tion. Representatives of 12 countries (but not the United reinforced rather than undermined the multinational in- Kingdom, Germany, and Norway)1 agreed to establish tergovernmental political management regime. closer relations between polar explorers; to standardize methods of observation in key fields; to cooperate in the discussion and interpretation of results; to provide advice THREE PRINCIPLES OF and assistance to new polar enterprises, with emphasis on SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONALISM scientific criteria; and to provide for the need for conti- nuity in activities by, for example, introducing research Even though the science criterion has become more bases for a five-year period, with rotation of participat- flexible with time, a challenge for the future is still the ing researchers who might come from different countries. question of internationalism—how far and what kind. In This far- reaching ideal of internationalism and planning this respect, three dimensions of internationalism can be was eclipsed by World War I and the cold war in science distinguished. that followed when, under the auspices of the then newly established International Research Council (IRC), the vic- 1. The epistemological, or knowledge, principle states tor countries boycotted research communities in Germany, that truth knows no boundaries and scientific results Austria, the Soviet Union, and some other countries, a belong to all. This is also called the principle of univer- situation that only changed (in part) when the IRC was sality. One way to operationalize it is to measure the replaced by the International Council of Scientific Unions frequency of multiauthor, multinational publications to (ICSU) in 1931. see if this has increased over time and to what extent When the idea of setting up the Special Committee nontreaty countries are represented. on Antarctic Research (SCAR) emerged in 1957 and was 2. The organizational principle pertains to the need to co- implemented the following year, several countries were, operate and exchange results. Division of labor helps at first, opposed to or dubious concerning a strong inter- prevent costly and unnecessary duplication. It is also a nationalist thrust in this context; not least, the Australian matter of what the sociologist of science Robert Mer- government objected because it felt this might lead to acts ton called the need for “organized skepticism,” what of occupancy on its claimed territory.2 This concern is evi- we today call peer review, to enhance the quality of re- dent, for example, in the actions of Keith Bullen, a seis- search and its results. One can furthermore distinguish mologist at the University of Sydney who attended SCAR’s a scale of cooperation ranging from simply multilateral constitutional meeting in The Hague and was elected its coordination of efforts to actual cooperation and, fur- vice- president. On his return to Australia he reported back ther, to close multinational collaboration in projects to government officials that in line with Australian policy, and at research stations. he had succeeded in getting a clause that had proposed that 3. The welfare principle involves solidarity and the appli- SCAR should directly organize the whole scientific pro- cation of the fruits of science for the benefit of all hu- gram in Antarctica removed from the draft SCAR consti- mankind, including the distribution of its goods. Joseph tution. Thus, SCAR shied away from the kind of dirigiste Needham, the first science director of the United Na- approach to cooperation in science that Henryk Arctowski tions Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization had advocated for in the old IPC in 1906. In 1958–1959 it (UNESCO) called it the periphery principle. He had in was, however, more than just a research management prin- mind the dissemination of science from its world cen- ciple that was at issue, it was a matter of politics. ters to the peripheries in the third world. Julian Huxley, With respect to the welfare principle in international- the first director general of UNESCO, used it to argue ism, the AT still has some way to go. Two alternatives to for organizing Antarctic research within an interna- the AT have been suggested; one is the notion of Antarctica tional institute (see Elzinga and Landström, 1996). as part of the heritage of humankind, from which stems the idea that it should be placed under the auspices of the When it comes to the epistemological principle, the United Nations. The other is the notion of Antarctica as a AT does quite well. Regarding the second principle, it has world natural park, an idea proposed by international envi- been unable to live up to the ideals already expressed in ronmentalist nongovernmental organizations. Both of these ELZINGA / LIMITATIONS OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY • 61 concepts have been unsuccessful, but they have contributed a definitive benchmark. Pre- IGY periods are depicted as to some accommodation of the AT to broader internation- ones of conflict and tension between countries with po- alist and environmental conservation principles. In light of litical and economic interests in Antarctica, whereas the these changes it appears that the most viable road for con- post- IGY era is mostly portrayed as one of harmony, one tinued and farther- reaching internationalism should involve where science is able to flourish. This portrayal is also a the introduction of international research stations. This misconception. point is briefly discussed at the end of this paper. Once the Antarctic Treaty was in place, national inter- ests and rivalries still existed when it came to advancing research projects because by and of itself, the science, or THE DECISION NOT TO LET THE COLD WAR the basic research motive, is not enough to establish new SPILL OVER INTO ANTARCTICA forms of large- scale multinational collaboration within the ATS framework. More often than not, a definitive political Regarding the negotiations prior to the signing of the will on the part of the participating countries, along with AT, first, 60 secret meetings were held, and then the formal the possibility of significant mutual benefit at economic conference opened in October 1959, culminating in the and political levels, is needed. The role of leading (hybrid) signing of the treaty on 1 December. The process was not scientific personalities who might act as champions for an easy one. As Ambassador Oscar Pinochet de la Barra specific projects with transnational and transdisciplinary recalled at the symposium “On the Future of the Antarc- collaboration is also important. It may be instructive to tic Treaty” held in Ushuaia, Argentina, on 20–24 March consider a visionary proposal for European research col- 1995, “some delegates were in favour of freedom of sci- laboration in Antarctica that arose in the early 1970s; ul- ence, others were against it; some supported the freezing timately, this proposal failed because even if the will was of sovereignty, some did not; some wanted a treaty for 30 there in relevant scientific communities, other factors con- years, others a more permanent treaty; some said yes and trolled by decision makers at several political levels consti- some said no to observers; and so on” (Jackson, 1995:9).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Antarctic Treaty System And
    The Antarctic Treaty System and Law During the first half of the 20th century a series of territorial claims were made to parts of Antarctica, including New Zealand's claim to the Ross Dependency in 1923. These claims created significant international political tension over Antarctica which was compounded by military activities in the region by several nations during the Second World War. These tensions were eased by the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-58, the first substantial multi-national programme of scientific research in Antarctica. The IGY was pivotal not only in recognising the scientific value of Antarctica, but also in promoting co- operation among nations active in the region. The outstanding success of the IGY led to a series of negotiations to find a solution to the political disputes surrounding the continent. The outcome to these negotiations was the Antarctic Treaty. The Antarctic Treaty The Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 by the twelve nations that had been active during the IGY (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and USSR). It entered into force on 23 June 1961. The Treaty, which applies to all land and ice-shelves south of 60° South latitude, is remarkably short for an international agreement – just 14 articles long. The twelve nations that adopted the Treaty in 1959 recognised that "it is in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord".
    [Show full text]
  • Belgium and Antarctica March 29, 1960
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION INSTITUTE OF CURRENT WORLD AFFAIRS Grand Hotel Brussels, Belgium Belgium and Antarctica March 29, 1960 Mr. Richard Nolte Execu ive Director Institute of Current World Affairs 366 Madison Avenue New York 17, New York Dear Dick: Commandant Gaston de Gerlache de Gomery, a slight, youngish- looking man with a pronounced twitch in his right eye, hardly appears to be the dynamo of energy who, alm.ost single-handed, has been res- ponsible for the remarkable revival of Belgium's interest in Antarctica. Born in 1920, he was, during his youth, i.t.nsely aware of the reputation of his father, Baron Adrlen de Gerlache, who had become internationally famous in the early years of the century for his leadership of the 1897-1899 Belgian Ant- arctic Expedition aboard the Belgicm.. This vessel, which drifted in the Antarctic pack ice along the western coast of the Palmer Peninsula for over a year, had been the first in history to remain within the Antarctic region throughout an entire winter season. In 1940, at the age of 20, de Gerlache entered the Belgian Air Force. He was soon moved to England, where he spent most of his seven years of military service flying with the R.A.F. It was during this period that he first met Francois Bastin, a young Air Force meteorologist, who was destined to lead the second Belgian Antarctic Expedition, which just returned to Belgium this month, after a year in Antarctica. Following the war, de Gerlache returned to Belgium, worked in Ghent as an engineer, married and began raising a family, which today includes a chazuning wife and three children, all of whom live at the Chateau de Millem.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Treaty Handbook: Tourism
    TOURISM AND OTHER NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES Introductory note Commercial tourism Until 1966 virtually all expeditions to the Antarctic had been organized by governments or had some measure of governmental backing. In that year there appeared in Antarctica for the first time a commercially organized, ship-borne tourist expedition. In subsequent years commercial tourism increased, using ships and aircraft. The area most frequently visited by sea was the Antarctic Peninsula. Regular airborne tourism began in 1977 and developed using long range passenger aircraft flying from Australia and New Zealand. Almost all of these flights overflew parts of Antarctica and returned home without landing. Airborne tourism diminished considerably following the tragic crash on Mount Erebus, Ross Island, on 28 November 1979 with the loss of 257 lives. Non-governmental non-tourist expeditions Such expeditions also began to appear in the Antarctic in 1966. The preparedness of such expeditions has varied; the consequent requests for assistance from governmental expeditions have sometimes caused disruption to scientific programs. A major aim of the consideration engendered by these expeditions within the Treaty fora has been to encourage such private expeditions to be adequately prepared and fully self-sufficient. Antarctic Treaty Recommendations XXI: Resolution 3 (1997) Standard Form for Advance Notification and Post-Visit Reporting on Tourism and Non-Governmental Activities in Antarctica The Representatives, Recalling Resolution 3 (1995) which agreed that there would be an advantage in standardized reporting of information on tourism and non-governmental activity in Antarctica; Noting that Attachment A to Recommendation 1 (1994) outlines the requirements for Advance Notice of tourism and non-governmental activities, and that Resolution 3 (1995) outlines requirements for post-activity reports; Recalling that Parties agreed at ATCM XX to trial a standard form for Advance Notification and Post-Visit Reporting during the 1996/97 Antarctic season.
    [Show full text]
  • Representations of Antarctic Exploration by Lesser Known Heroic Era Photographers
    Filtering ‘ways of seeing’ through their lenses: representations of Antarctic exploration by lesser known Heroic Era photographers. Patricia Margaret Millar B.A. (1972), B.Ed. (Hons) (1999), Ph.D. (Ed.) (2005), B.Ant.Stud. (Hons) (2009) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science – Social Sciences. University of Tasmania 2013 This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis. ………………………………….. ………………….. Patricia Margaret Millar Date This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. ………………………………….. ………………….. Patricia Margaret Millar Date ii Abstract Photographers made a major contribution to the recording of the Heroic Era of Antarctic exploration. By far the best known photographers were the professionals, Herbert Ponting and Frank Hurley, hired to photograph British and Australasian expeditions. But a great number of photographs were also taken on Belgian, German, Swedish, French, Norwegian and Japanese expeditions. These were taken by amateurs, sometimes designated official photographers, often scientists recording their research. Apart from a few Pole-reaching images from the Norwegian expedition, these lesser known expedition photographers and their work seldom feature in the scholarly literature on the Heroic Era, but they, too, have their importance. They played a vital role in the growing understanding and advancement of Antarctic science; they provided visual evidence of their nation’s determination to penetrate the polar unknown; and they played a formative role in public perceptions of Antarctic geopolitics.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Conference of the History EG and Humanities and Social Sciences
    Joint conference of the History EG and Humanities and Social Sciences EG "Antarctic Wilderness: Perspectives from History, the Humanities and the Social Sciences" Colorado State University, Fort Collins (USA), 20 - 23 May 2015 A joint conference of the History Expert Group and the Humanities and Social Sciences Expert Group on "Antarctic Wilderness: Perspectives from History, the Humanities and the Social Sciences" was held at Colorado State University in Fort Collins (USA) on 20-23 May 2015. On Wednesday (20 May) we started with an excursion to the Rocky Mountain National Park close to Estes. A hike of two hours took us along a former golf course that had been remodelled as a natural plain, and served as a fitting site for a discussion with park staff on “comparative wilderness” given the different connotations of that term in isolated Antarctica and comparatively accessible Colorado. After our return to Fort Collins we met a group of members of APECS (Association of Polar Early Career Scientists), with whom we had a tour through the New Belgium Brewery. The evening concluded with a screening of the film “Nightfall on Gaia” by the anthropologist Juan Francisco Salazar (Australia), which provides an insight into current social interactions on King George Island and connections to the natural and political complexities of the sixth continent. The conference itself was opened by on Thursday (21 May) by Diana Wall, head of the School of Global Environmental Sustainability at the Colorado State University (CSU). Andres Zarankin (Brazil) opened the first session on narratives and counter narratives from Antarctica with his talk on sealers, marginality, and official narratives in Antarctic history.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Weddell Sea Expedition
    Initial Environmental Evaluation SA Agulhas II in sea ice. Image: Johan Viljoen 1 Submitted to the Polar Regions Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as part of an application for a permit / approval under the UK Antarctic Act 1994. Submitted by: Mr. Oliver Plunket Director Maritime Archaeology Consultants Switzerland AG c/o: Maritime Archaeology Consultants Switzerland AG Baarerstrasse 8, Zug, 6300, Switzerland Final version submitted: September 2018 IEE Prepared by: Dr. Neil Gilbert Director Constantia Consulting Ltd. Christchurch New Zealand 2 Table of contents Table of contents ________________________________________________________________ 3 List of Figures ___________________________________________________________________ 6 List of Tables ___________________________________________________________________ 8 Non-Technical Summary __________________________________________________________ 9 1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 18 2. Environmental Impact Assessment Process ________________________________________ 20 2.1 International Requirements ________________________________________________________ 20 2.2 National Requirements ____________________________________________________________ 21 2.3 Applicable ATCM Measures and Resolutions __________________________________________ 22 2.3.1 Non-governmental activities and general operations in Antarctica _______________________________ 22 2.3.2 Scientific research in Antarctica __________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • The Antarctic Treaty
    The Antarctic Treaty Measures adopted at the Thirty-ninth Consultative Meeting held at Santiago, Chile 23 May – 1 June 2016 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty November 2017 Cm 9542 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Treaty Section, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London, SW1A 2AH ISBN 978-1-5286-0126-9 CCS1117441642 11/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majestyʼs Stationery Office MEASURES ADOPTED AT THE THIRTY-NINTH ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Santiago, Chile 23 May – 1 June 2016 The Measures1 adopted at the Thirty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting are reproduced below from the Final Report of the Meeting. In accordance with Article IX, paragraph 4, of the Antarctic Treaty, the Measures adopted at Consultative Meetings become effective upon approval by all Contracting Parties whose representatives were entitled to participate in the meeting at which they were adopted (i.e. all the Consultative Parties). The full text of the Final Report of the Meeting, including the Decisions and Resolutions adopted at that Meeting and colour copies of the maps found in this command paper, is available on the website of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat at www.ats.aq/documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic
    Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic Activities in the Antarctic are governed by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and associated agreements, referred to collectively as the Antarctic Treaty system. The Treaty established Antarctica as a zone of peace and science. In 1991, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties adopted the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which designates the Antarctic as a natural reserve. The Protocol sets out environmental principles, procedures and obligations for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment, and its dependent and associated ecosystems. The Consultative Parties have agreed that, pending its entry into force, as far as possible and in accordance with their legal system, the provisions of the Protocol should be applied as appropriate. The Environmental Protocol applies to tourism and non-governmental activities as well as governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. It is intended to ensure that these activities do not have adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment, or on its scientific and aesthetic values. This Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic is intended to ensure that all visitors are aware of, and are therefore able to comply with, the Treaty and the Protocol. Visitors are, of course, bound by national laws and regulations applicable to activities in the Antarctic. A) PROTECT ANTARCTIC WILDLIFE Taking or harmful interference with Antarctic wildlife is prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued by a national authority. 1) Do not use aircraft, vessels, small boats, or other means of transport in ways that disturb wildlife, either at sea or on land. 2) Do not feed, touch, or handle birds or seals, or approach or photograph them in ways that cause them to alter their behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • US-NZ Partnership in Antarctica
    US-NZ Partnership in Antarctica New Zealand Embassy 10 Apr 2015 Mr. Peter Beggs Dr. Kelly Kenison Falkner Chief Executive Director, Polar Programs & USAP Antarctica New Zealand National Science Foundation Mt. Victoria Wellington, NZ Rear Admiral Richard Evelyn Byrd, Jr. Antarctic Treaty System US & NZ are among 12 original signatories of Treaty • Treaty signed 1959, entered into force 1961, reaffirmed for 50 more years 2011 United Kingdom • All territorial claims held in Norway abeyance Argentina • Reserved for peaceful uses • Commitment to Chile environmental protection and Australia scientific research • 50 Member Nations; 29 are consultative parties with an France “Active Science Program” New • Consensus based Treaty Zealand measures implemented through domestic law Antarctica New Zealand The New Zealand Antarctic Institute Act: To develop, maintain and execute New Zealand activities in Antarctica, in particular the Ross Dependency To enhance the quality of New Zealand scientific research To cooperate with other (Antarctic) organisations within and outside New Zealand • Permanent presence at Scott Base • Logistics support • National Antarctic Program co- operation • Science coordination • Environmental management • Support to Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Antarctic Treaty matters • Outreach and education Scope of USAP Logistics System Christchurch – Antarctica Historic Context The sea port of Christchurch, Lyttelton was the final stop over for early Antarctic Expeditions The British National Antarctic Expedition ship, the Discovery,
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Research As a Precedent for Diplomacy Exercised Through International Scientific Cooperation: Applying Collaborative Systems in Non-Jurisdictional Spaces
    Antarctic research as a precedent for diplomacy exercised through international scientific cooperation: applying collaborative systems in non-jurisdictional spaces Mia Vanderwilt, B.S. Science, Technology and International Affairs, Environment & Energy Senior Thesis Accompaniment Acknowledgements This paper accompanies a senior thesis manuscript on the effect of heightened soil moisture and salinity on soil microbial communities within an Antarctic water track. Field work for this thesis was conducted as a part of the 2018 Tawani Expedition to Lake Untersee, Antarctica, a hyperarid Mars-analog environment. This supplementary paper will examine how multinational Antarctic research exemplifies the potential of scientific cooperation to mediate diplomacy in non- jurisdictional areas. Specifically, this paper will briefly examine how multilateral Antarctic treaties prioritizing collaborative research have facilitated scientific diplomacy, minimized geopolitical conflict and mitigated threats of militarization. This paper will be submitted along with the manuscript for honors to the Science, Technology, and International Affairs program within the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Introduction A significant percentage of the Earth’s surface is non-jurisdictional, falling outside traditional bounds of national sovereignty. The vast majority of this area lies within polar regions and the high oceans beyond the reach of national exclusive economic zones. Successes and failures in the governance of these spaces in the absence of sovereign authorities provide valuable lessons for the avoidance of further militarization and destructive resource extraction in continued polar, ocean and space exploration. Antarctica serves as an ideal case study for how initial militarization and territorial contests were successfully diffused through the enactment of an international treaty formally prioritizing international scientific research.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU in Antarctica: an Emerging Area of Interest, Or Playing to the (Environmental) Gallery?
    The EU in Antarctica: An Emerging Area of Interest, or Playing to the (Environmental) Gallery? * * Andreas RASPOTNIK & Andreas ØSTHAGEN Over the past decade, the EU has developed broader interests in the polar regions – ranging from fisheries, research and environmental protection to foreign affairs. Although this applies mainly to the Arctic region, its geographical opposite – the Antarctic – has not fallen into oblivion. This article explores the EU’s way ‘south’, examining its links to the region as well as the key drivers of this growing – albeit still limited – Antarctic engagement. International actions taken to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) also indicate supranational tendencies to engage actively in and with Antarctic affairs. In particular, this concerns the European Commission and broader debates on sustainable development and global environmental leadership. Keywords: European Union, Antarctic, Marine Protected Areas, Fisheries, Antarctic Treaty System 1 INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, the EU and its various institutional actors have developed specific policies for geographical regions where the EU and its Member States hold interests. One example of this – driven by climate-change awareness, economic interests, geo- political shifts and intra-institutional policy expansion – concerns the polar regions. Despite several setbacks, these steps have been largely successful in the Arctic, with the EU having become an accepted partner at the Arctic governance table. However, compared to its fluid eastern and southern neighbourhoods, the Arctic and its regional layer – the European Arctic – are not key priority areas for the EU. They remain essentially a marginal note in EU foreign policy – a periphery on the periphery.1 With the Arctic’s geographical opposite, Antarctica, there is even less engagement.2 With most of its territory located in the Northern Hemisphere, EU * Senior Research Fellows at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Lysaker, Norway.
    [Show full text]
  • AUTARKIC a NEWS BULLETIN Published Quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC)
    AUTARKIC A NEWS BULLETIN published quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC) One of Argentina's oldest Antarctic stations. Almirante Brown, which was destroyed by fire on April 12. Situated in picturesque Paradise Bay on the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, it was manned first in 1951 by an Argentine Navy detachment, and became a scientific Station in 1955. Pnoto by Colin Monteath w_i -f n M#i R Registered at Post Office Headquarters, VOI. IU, IMO. D Wellington. New Zealand, as a magazine June, 1984 • . SOUTH SANDWICH It SOUTH GEORGIA / SOU1H ORKNEY Is ' \ ^^^----. 6 S i g n y l u K , / ' o O r c a d a s a r g SOUTH AMERICA ,/ Boroa jSyowa%JAPAN \ «rf 7 s a 'Molodezhnaya v/' A S O U T H « 4 i \ T \ U S S R s \ ' E N D E R B Y \ ) > * \ f(f SHETLANO | JV, W/DD Hallev Bay^ DRONNING MAUD LAND / S E A u k v ? C O A T S I d | / LAND T)/ \ Druzhnaya ^General Belgrano arg \-[ • \ z'f/ "i Mawson AlVTARCTIC-\ MAC ROBERTSON LANd\ \ *usi /PENINSUtA'^ [set mjp below) Sobral arg " < X ^ . D a v i s A u s t _ Siple — USA ;. Amundsen-Scon QUEEN MARY LAND ELLSWORTH " q U S A ') LAND ° Vostok ussr / / R o , s \ \ MARIE BYRD fee She/ r*V\ L LAND WILKES LAND Scon A * ROSSI"2*? Vanda n 7 SEA IJ^r 'victoria TERRE . LAND \^„ ADELIE ,> GEORGE V LJ ■Oumout d'Urville iran< 1 L*ningradsfcaya Ar ■ SI USSR,-'' \ ---'•BALIENYU ANTARCTIC PENINSULA 1 Teniente Matienzo arg 2 Esperanza arg 3 Almirante Brown arg 4 Petrel arg 5 Decepcion arg 6 Vicecomodoro Marambio arg * ANTARCTICA 7 Arturo Prat cm.le 8 Bernardo O'Higgms chile 9 Presidents Frei cmile 500 tOOOKiloflinnn 10 Stonington I.
    [Show full text]