Personal letters written by John Franklin to his relatives and friends between 1819 and 1824 reveal the Admiralty's 1819–1822 overland expedition from a unique perspective. All the official journals of that expedition have been published, as have the most important pieces of correspondence between Franklin and the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, and fur-trade officers. Previously unpublished personal correspondence, however, offers the possibility of a more candid response, as well as an opportunity to view the experience from an altered position. In these personal communications, Franklin sometimes expresses opinions that contradict those that appear in his public narrative and official records. But more importantly, they help construct an image of Franklin's personality around the time of his first overland expedition. The letters reveal a modest man with close familial attachments and a strong sense of personal relationships, in spite of the increasingly technological nature of his subsequent Arctic undertakings.

The professional artist Edward Seago (1910–1974) travelled to the Antarctic Peninsula, the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia in the 1956/57 austral summer. Although firmly rooted in the English, and in particular the East Anglian, tradition of landscape painting, Seago was able to portray polar landscapes, which he had not previously experienced, with vigour and delight. He went to Antarctica with a firmly established skill in using oils to capture the essence of a landscape, and, despite being on or near the Antarctic Peninsula for only about three days, he produced about 18 oil paintings, predominantly of landscapes and icescapes. In addition, he painted at least a further 17 works of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, the whaling industry, and icebergs in the Southern Ocean. Seago had an excellent memory and was able to ‘reproduce’ earlier works, an ability that has caused some confusion. Examples of these counterparts are discussed. A catalogue of his known Antarctic works is given.

Since the late 1970s, theorists in the field of international relations have increasingly used the concept ‘international regime’ in their attempts to give content to the idea of international governance. The concept was adopted from international lawyers, and this has led to some confusion when analysts apply terminology differently. Analysis of Antarctic politics is no exception. This article seeks to illustrate how the theory of international regimes can be applied to the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The focus is on the events of the 1980s, during which international awareness (or perception) of a global environmental crisis severely tested the robustness of ‘the Antarctic regime’ (that is, the ATS). Three approaches to regime formation and change or transformation are considered in an attempt to explain the rejection of the Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities and the acceptance of the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The three approaches employed are game theory, functional theories, and cognitive explanations. The evolution of a new epistemic consensus on the value and the future of the Antarctic crystallises, signifying a key role on the part of natural scientists and environmental non-governmental organisations. It is concluded that the ATS as a whole can today be described as an international environmental regime.

Karl Ernst von Baer coined the word ‘Eiskeller’ (ice-cellar) to describe the Kara Sea in 1837, but he did not define precisely what he meant. The word was seized upon by subsequent geographers, notably Friedrich B. Lütke and August Petermann, as implying that the sea was unnavigable. However, when numerous successful voyages — by Norwegian fishermen, Joseph Wiggins, and Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld — showed that this was not the case, it was Baer, and not Lütke or Petermann, who was criticised for the claim. Baer only defended himself against these allegations in 1876, the year of his death, 39 years after he had first used the term.