Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T17:59:48.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antarctic mineral exploitation: The emerging legal framework. By Francisco Orrego Vicuña. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Pp. xv, 615. Index. $89.50. - International Law for Antarctica / Droit International de l’Antarctique. Edited by Francesco Francioni and Tullio Scovazzi. Milan: Giuffrè Editore, 1987. Pp. xiv, 532. L. 50.000. - Managing the Frozen South: The Creation and Evolution of the Antarctic Treaty System. By M. J. Peterson. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1988. Pp. xi, 283. Index. $35.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Christopher C. Joyner
Christopher C. Joyner*
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews and Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 1989 , pp. 605 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Antarctic Treaty, Dec. 1, 1959, 12 UST 794, TIAS No. 4780, 402 UNTS 71.

2 The 12 original contracting parties to the Antarctic Treaty are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. Since 1961, ten additional states have been admitted, as provided for in Article 9 of the Treaty, into the Consultative Party group: Poland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, Uruguay, the German Democratic Republic, Italy, Spain and Sweden. Seventeen other states are now nonconsultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty.

3 Antarctica: Measures in Furtherance of Principles and Objectives of the Antarctic Treaty, adopted June 2–13, 1964, Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, 17 UST 991, TIAS No. 6058 and 10,485.

4 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, done June 1, 1972, 29 UST 441, TIAS No. 8826.

5 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, done May 20, 1980, TIAS No. 10,240, reprinted in 19 ILM 837 (1980) [hereinafter CCAMLR].

6 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, done June 2, 1988, Doc. AMR/SCM/88/78 (June 2, 1988), reprinted in 27 ILM 859, 868 (1988) [hereinafter CRAMRA].

7 In 1985 the following Antarctic Treaty party states voted in favor of the General Assembly resolution calling for the exclusion of South Africa from ATCP meetings: China, India, Peru and Romania. GA Res. C, UN Doc. A/40/156 (1985). In 1986 those four states were joined by Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union in voting for a similar resolution. GA Res. C, UN Doc. A/41/88 (1986). See Kimball, Report on Antarctica 2 (International Institute for Environment and Development, June 19, 1987). In 1987 a General Assembly resolution requested that parties to the Antarctic Treaty inform the Secretary-General of steps taken regarding the exclusion of South Africa from the Consultative Party group. See UN Doc. A/C.1/42/L.86 (1987). The following parties to the Antarctic Treaty voted in favor of that resolution: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, the German Democratic Republie, Hungary, India, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union. Kimball, Report on Antarctica 22 (International Institute for Environment and Development, December 1987).

8 See Recommendations of Second World Conference on National Parks, reprinted in Greenpeace International, The Future of the Antarctic: Background for a UN Debate, App. 7 (1983).

9 See the discussion in section V infra.

10 CCAMLR, supra note 5, Art. I.

11 Id., Art. VII.

12 See the discussion in section V infra. See, e.g., UN Docs. A/41/688 and Adds. 1 and 8 (1986) (refusal of the ATCPs to respond to UN requests for more detailed information on the operation of the Antarctic Treaty system).

13 See Greenpeace International, The Future of the Antarctic, App. 9 (1985). Significantly, at least six other iterations of the “Beeby text”—named after the Chairman of the negotiations, Christopher Beeby of New Zealand—were prepared between 1983 and 1988. See (1) The Antarctic Minerals Regime: The Beeby Draft, reprinted in Greenpeace International, supra note 8, App. 8; (2) Beeby Draft II, reprinted in Greenpeace Interna Tional, The Future of the Antarctic: Background for a Second U.N. Debate, App. 8 (1984); (3) Beeby, Antarctic Mineral Resources: Chairman’s Informal Personal Report: MR/17 REV II (Sept. 19, 1986) (mimeo.); (4) Antarctic Mineral Resources: Chairman’s In formal Personal Report: MR/17 REV III Annex to Chairman’s Informal Personal Report (April 1987) (mimeo.); (5) Antarctic Mineral Resources: Chairman’s Informal Personal Report: MR/17 REVISION IV, Annex to Chairman’s Informal Personal Report, Antarctic Mineral Resources: Draft Convention (November 1987) (mimeo.); and (6) Antarctic Mineral Resources: Chairman’s Informal Personal Report: MR/17 REVISION V, Annex to Chairman’s Informal Personal Report, Antarctic Mineral Resources: Draft Convention (February 1988) (mimeo.).

14 That is, the CRAMRA, supra note 6.

15 Decree No. 1,747, Declaring the Limits of the Chilean Antarctic Territory, Nov. 6, 1940, reprinted in 2 W. Bush, Antarctica and International Law 311 (1982). The decree states simply: “All lands, islands, islets, reefs of rocks, glaciers (packice), already known, or to be discovered, and their respective territorial waters, in the sector between longitudes 53 and 90 West, constitute the Chilean Antarctic or Chilean Antarctic territory.”

16 Law No. 71-1060 [of 24 December 1971] on the delimitation of French territorial waters, Journal officiel, Dec. 30, 1971, at 12,899, reprinted in United Nations, National Legisla tion and Treaties Relating to the Law of the Sea 17, UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/18 (1976).

17 The inference of a territorial sea applied to Australian Antarctic territory is done by “extension.” See Harry, The Antarctic Regime and the Law of the Sea Convention: An Australian View, 21 Va. J. Int’l L. 727, 730 (1981).

18 Decree No. 78–144, Establishing an Economic Zone in the Sea off the Coasts of French Southern Lands, Feb. 3, 1978, Journal officiel, Feb. 11, 1978, at 684–85, reprinted in 2 W. Bush, supra note 15, at 586.

19 Proclamation Constituting Waters of 200 Nautical Miles Around Australia and Its External Territories’ Proclaimed Waters for the Purposes of the Fisheries Act, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, No. S189, at 1 (Sept. 26, 1979), reprinted in 2 W. Bush, supra note 15, at 202–03.

20 For discussion of this notion, see Joyner, The Exclusive Economic Zone and Antarctica, 19 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 469 (1988).

21 In full, Article VI of the Treaty, supra note 1, provides:

The provisions of the present Treaty shall apply to the area south of 60° South Latitude, including all ice shelves, but nothing in the present Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard to the high seas within that area.

22 International environmental groups, most notably Greenpeace and the Atlantic and Southern Ocean Coalition, continue to question seriously the actual ability of any minerals regime in the Antarctic to prevent grave impacts to the local environment. See, e.g., Minerals Negotiations: An Environmental Tragedy and a Fatally Flawed Document, ECO, No. 1, May 2–June 2, 1988, at 1–2 (Greenpeace Newsletter); The Balance of Mineral Power, ECO, No. 3, May 2–June 2, 1988, at 1–2; and The Prospects of Impacts: Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities Dangerous, ECO, No. 7, May 2–June 2, 1988, at 1–2.

23 Beeby, Chairman’s Informal Personal Report (Sept. 19, 1986), supra note 13.

24 For recent discussion of the CRAMRA institutions, and their operation and voting schemes, seejoyner, The 1988 Antarctic Minerals Convention, 1 Marine Pol’y Rep. 81 (1989); and Joyner, The Evolving Antarctic Minerals Regime, 19 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 73 (1988). For an assessment strongly critical of the regime, see Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, Analysis of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (AMR/SCM/88.78-June 2, 1988) (Oct. 29, 1988).

25 See generally Kimball, Special Report on the Antarctic Minerals Convention (International Institute for Environment and Development, July 1988).

26 Compare Larschan & Brennan, The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle in International Law, 21 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 305 (1983), with Wolfrum, The Principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind, Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht Und Völkerrecht 312 (1983).

27 A notable exception is the piece by Francesco Francioni, Antarctica and the Common Heritage of Mankind, in the book he edited with Tullio Scovazzi at p. 101.

28 See Part II: Views of States, in Question of Antarctica, Study Requested under General Assembly Resolution 38/77, Report of the Secretary-General, vol. I, at 92 (Bangladesh); vol. 2, at 46 (Egypt), 83 (Ghana), 107 and 110 (Malaysia); vol. 3, at 21 (Nigeria), 35 (Pakistan), 71 (Sri Lanka), 136 (Zambia), and 139 (Zimbabwe), UN Doc. A/39/583 (1984).