Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-x64cq Total loading time: 0.258 Render date: 2022-05-21T09:28:58.972Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Article contents

Australian law in Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Stuart Kaye
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, 173–175 Phillip Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
Donald R. Rothwell
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, 173–175 Phillip Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia

Abstract

This article examines the content and ramifications of an Australian Parliamentary Committee's Report into the application of Australian law in the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). The Report's main findings suggest that Australian law should be more vigorously applied in Antarctica, and that current practices with regard to the operation and enforcement of Australian law are perceived as damaging to Australian sovereignty. This is particularly the case in the context of the virtual non-application of law to all foreign nationals within the AAT, to an extent far beyond the categories of persons exempted by Article VIII of the Antarctic Treaty. The article also discusses the possible ramifications and difficulties of giving effect to the Report's findings. Particular stress is placed upon the impact of asserting a 200-nautical-mile fishing or exclusive economic zone in the waters off the AAT, as well as the logistic difficulties that may become apparent if Australian sovereignty is more actively asserted. In this context, brief consideration is given to the Report's recommendations relating to the Antarctic environment and tourism within the AAT.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Australia. 1978. Australia, Antarctica and the law of the sea. Report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Canberra: Government of Australia.Google Scholar
Australia. 1980. Initial report to government. Report of the Antarctic Research Policy and Advisory Committee. Canberra: Government of Australia.Google Scholar
Australia. 1985. The natural resources of the Australian Antarctic Territory. Report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. Canberra: Government of Australia.Google Scholar
Australia. 1989. Tourism in Antarctica. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. Canberra: Government of Australia.Google Scholar
Australia. 1991. Islands in the sun. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Canberra: Government of Australia.Google Scholar
Australia. 1992. Australian law in Antarctica. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Canberra: Government of Australia.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.R., and Rothwell, D.R.. 1992. Legal issues confronting Australia's Antarctica. Australian Yearbook of International Law 13: 5388.Google Scholar
Joyner, C.C. 1981. The exclusive economic zone and Antarctica. Virginia Journal of International Law 21: 691725.Google Scholar
Murray-Smith, S. 1988. Sitting on penguins: people and politics in Australian Antarctica. Surry Hills, NSW: Century Hutchinson Australia.Google Scholar
Opeskin, B.R., and Rothwell, D.R.. 1991. Australia's territorial sea: international and federal implications of its extension to 12 miles. Ocean Development and International Law 22: 395431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orrego Vicuna, F. 1988. Antarctic mineral exploitation: the emerging legal framework, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shevlin, J. 1992. Japanese whaling activity observed near Davis station. Anarenews 69: 1819.Google Scholar
Triggs, G. 1985. The Antarctic Treaty regime: a workable compromise or a'purgatory of ambiguity'? Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 17: 195228.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Australian law in Antarctica
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Australian law in Antarctica
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Australian law in Antarctica
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *