¹ That the South Atlantic area as a whole is now viewed as of prime strategic and economic importance was attested during the War of the South-West Atlantic of 1982 by Argentina's foreign minister, N. Costa Méndez, who bluntly informed a television programme on 15 April 1982 that ‘there is something more important [than the matter of claims]. The meaning of the Argentine presence in the islands is that Argentina controls an area in the South Atlantic, politically and economically’. See The Economist, 24 04 1982.Google Scholar

² Van, der Essen, Symposium, p. 235.Google Scholar

³ Sollie, ibid., p. 324.

⁴ Van der Essen, ibid., p. 234.

⁵ Guyer, ibid., p. 278.

⁶ UN Report, 2 11, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁷ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Bk v. i.e. 30. 1776).

⁸ Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, Norway, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

⁹ UN Report, 31 10, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For Peru's ambivalence, see UN Report, 11., p. 137Google Scholar Chile's order of priorities in the Antarctic is fully revealed in ibid., 2 11., p. 17 as follows: (i) ‘its geographical and strategic importance’ (ii) ‘its renewable and non-renewable resources’, and (iii) ‘its scientific interest’.Google Scholar

¹¹ Argentina and Chile can claim to be much closer to the nearest point in the Antarctic (950 km) than their fellow-claimants Austrialia (3,500 km) or New Zealand (2,000 km).

¹² On Uruguay, see document of accession, in 19 International Legal Materials (1980), p. 547.Google Scholar On Brazil, see , J. SimŌes, ‘Brazilian Antarctic Research Programme’, Polar Record vol. 22 (1984), pp. 325–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Auburn, , op. cit., p. 109.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Guardian, 17 02 1984.Google Scholar

¹⁵ International Herald Tribune, 11 04 1984.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Western Germany/Denmark/the Netherlands), ICJ Reports 1969 p. 22et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Text in Brownlie, I. (ed.), Basic Documents in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd edition, 1983), pp. 122–6.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Text in ibid., pp. 204–11. For an analysis, see Cheng, B., ‘The Moon Treaty: agreement governing the activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies other than the Earth’, Current Legal Problems (1980) vol. 33, PP. 213–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ UN Report, 2 11, pp. 30–2.Google Scholar

²⁰ Zegers, F., ‘The Antarctic System and the Utilisation of Resources’, Univeristy of Miami Law Review (1978), at pp. 431, 470, and 471.Google Scholar

²¹ UN Report, 31 10, p. 65.Google Scholar

²² Whales fall under the authority of the International Whaling Commission.

²³ Couratier, , Symposium, pp. 142–3.Google Scholar

²⁴ ibid., p. 144.

²⁵ Couratier, , Symposium, p. 140.Google Scholar

²⁶ Auburn, , op. cit., p. 160.Google Scholar

²⁷ UN Report, 9 11, p. 90.Google Scholar

²⁸ Article I of the Canberra Convention.

²⁹ Article XII of the Canberra Convention.

³⁰ Zegers, , Symposium, p. 155.Google Scholar

³¹ Auburn, , p. 224.Google Scholar

³² Couratier, , Symposium, p. 147.Google Scholar

³³ UN Report, 31 10, p. 63.Google Scholar

³⁴ González-Ferrán, , Symposium, p. 164.Google Scholar

³⁵ ibid., p. 163.

³⁶ UN Report, 31 10, p. 67.Google Scholar

³⁷ The Guardian, 18 02, 1984.Google Scholar

³⁸ UN Report, 9 11, PP. 127–8.Google Scholar

³⁹ Auburn, , op. cit., p. 241.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ González-Ferrán, , Symposium, p. 162.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sollie, , Symposium, p. 318.Google Scholar

⁴² Beeby, ibid., p. 192.

⁴³ Orrego, Vicuña, Symposium, pp. 199–201.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Auburn, , op cit., pp. 260–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ibid., p. 245 and UN Report, 31 10., p. 68,Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Auburn, , op. cit., p. 262.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Zegers, F., ‘The Antarctic System and the Utilisation of Resources’, University of Miami Law Review, no. 33, (1978). 471.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ UN Report, 31 10., p. 67.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ UN Report, 31 10., p. 68. An Expert Working Group was set up in 1980, but the guidance it provided was disappointingly general and wide.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Auburn, , op. cit., p. 264.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bergsager, , Symposium, pp. 174–5.Google Scholar

⁵² Auburn, , op. cit., p. 255.Google Scholar

⁵³ Beeby, , Symposium, pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Financial Times, 26 08 1984.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ United Nations, The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Index and Final Act of the Third UNCLOS (New York: United Nations, 1983).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Harry, R. L., ‘The Antarctic Régime and the Law of the Sea Convention: an Australian View’, Virginia Journal of International Law vol. 21, (1981), pp. 727–44.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ UN Report, 31 10, p. 70.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Essen, , Symposium, p. 242.Google Scholar The editor expresses a marked desire to see the jurisdiction of such an International Sea-bed Authority excluded from the continental shelf of the Antarctic. See ibid., pp. 211–12.

⁶⁰ Article 76 of the Montego Bay Convention defines the continental shelf as the sea-bed and subsoil of the submerged areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory up to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baseline.

⁶⁰ Infante, Symposium, p. 253.

⁶¹ Guillaume, ibid., p. 189.

⁶² Shusterich, E. M., Resource Management and the Oceans: the Political Economy of Deep Sea Mining (Boulder, Colorado; Westview Press, 1982) provides a good summary of United States policy toward deep-sea mining.Google Scholar

⁶³ Brazil made a move in that direction in 1956. See UN Report, 2 11., p. 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Guyer, , Symposium, p. 274. The inverted commas enclosing the word ‘justice’ are Guyer's.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Beeby, ibid., p. 196.

⁶⁶ UN Chronicle, 17–1812, 1982.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ SeeBeck, P. J., ‘Antarctica: a Case for the UN?’, The World Today, vol. 40, (1984), pp. 165–72.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ UN Report, 31 10., p. 29.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Brennan, , Symposium, p. 226.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Sollie, ibid., p. 332.

⁷² Luard, E., ‘Who Owns the Antarctica’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 62, (1984), pp. 1175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷³ Beeby, , Symposium, pp. 193–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See, for instance, Rich, R., ‘A Minerals Régime for Antarctica’, International and Comparative Law quarterly, vol. 31, (1982), pp. 709–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁵ Wolfrum, R., Die Internalionalisierung staatsfreier Räume (Berlin: Springer, 1984), pp. 66–7 and 91.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Sollie, , Symposium, p. 334, Note 12.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Treaty concerning Spitzbergen, 9 Feb. 1920, Article 3.

⁷⁸ Ibid., Article 8.

⁷⁹ Orrego, Vicũna, Symposium, p. 244.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Gonzaález-Ferrán, Ibid., p. 164.

⁸¹ Luard, , op. cit., p. 335.Google Scholar

⁸² Jøhan, Jorgen Holst, a well–known Norwegian politician, writing in the Labour Party paper Arbeiderbladet of 30 04 and 13 05 1982,Google Scholar suggests the withdrawal of Norway's territorial claims in the Antarctic, See, Sollie, , Symposium, p. 325.Google Scholar

⁸³ See Honnold, E. E., ‘Thaw in International Law'. Rights in Antarctica under the Law of Common Spaces’, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 87 (1977/1978), pp. 804–59.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Sollie, , Symposium, p. 324.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ UN Report, 2 11, p. 25. Precisely ten lines out of the inordinately long, twenty-five page report by Chile, deal with the mineral issue.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid., p. 32.

⁸⁷ UN Report, 29 10. p. 24.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid., 29 11., p. 31.

⁸⁹ Ibid., p. 11.

⁹⁰ UN Report, 9 11., p. 37.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid., p. 74.

⁹² Ibid., 29 10., p. 102.

⁹³ Orrego, Vicuña, Symposium, p. 200.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ UN Report, 2 11., p. 18.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ UN Report, 9 11., p. 45: ‘In the case of the Philippines, the Treaties of Paris and Washington could be the subject of scrutiny by the Consultative Parties if the Philippines pursues its position on Antarctica with Malaysia’.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ibid., p. 99.

⁹⁷ Beck, P. J., op. cit., p. 168.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ UN Report, 2 11., p. 18.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ibid., p. 40.

¹⁰⁰ On this point, see Pallone, F., ‘Resources Exploitation: The Threat to the Legal Régime of Antarctica’, The International Lawyer, vol. (1978), pp. 547–61.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Luard, , op. cit., p. 1192.Google Scholar