Uninhabited Antarctica has its lands claimed by seven nations (from west to east, after Marie Byrd and Ellsworth Lands: Chile, Argentina, United Kingdom, Norway, Australia, France and New Zealand (Aotearoa)). In the race to the South Pole in the early 20th Century, countries wanted to gain lands and expand their borders, but it was up until the Antarctic Treaty entered into force more than 60 years ago, so no new claims can be made, nor the current claims can be modified.

Here are my questions regarding Article IV, which concerns territorial claims in the continent:

  1. No one recognises nor can recognise the claims made by these countries (IV, 1st Part, Sec. 3), so they don't own these lands de jure according to the Treaty. If the rest of the treaty enumerates the permitted kinds of activities in and the permitted behaviour of states (particularly the Contracting Parties) on Antarctica and how the Antarctic law will proceed, why can't countries recognise such claims? Isn't there a way for claimants to exercise their jurisdictions without compromising the Treaty?
  2. No new claims can be made, nor the existing claims can be modified (IV, 2nd Part). Argentine, British and Chilean claims are all overlapping: Argentine Antarctica starts from 74°W to 25°W, the British Antarctic Territory from 80°W to 20°W, and the Chilean Antarctic Territory from 90°W to 53°W. It means Chileans and Brits contest the land 80°W to 74°W, and Argentines and Brits fight over the land 53°W to 25°W, and all parties claim the land in-between, which includes the Antarctic Peninsula. All Argentine Antarctica is disputed whilst Chile and the UK have uncontested zones. This is the status quo in the region. How can this dispute be solved, that there would be no overlapping claims? From west to east, it would be like Chile then Argentina then the United Kingdom. The Antarctic Peninsula would be of special concern if this were tackled, since it houses research stations of different countries (many are no claimant nations); how would this zone be treated then? Can a special zone be established over the Peninsula?
    (No conflict can and should happen in the region (Article I), and the dispute is still ongoing with relative peace. The major related conflict was between the UK and Argentina, especially when the latter invaded the Falkland Islands and South Georgia South Sandwich and Islands (the Falklands War), both of which north of the Antarctic Peninsula and the South Shetland and South Orkney Islands.)
  3. All claims intersect at the South Pole, which contains the Amundsen-Scott station of the United States. If question 1 is addressed, this would become an issue. Like the Peninsula concern in 2, can a special zone also be formed over the station, that it will be open for researchers of different countries?

These questions require amending the Treaty's Article IV, and it would require meetings from the Contracting Parties (Article XII). The best interest here shall be upholding the Treaty, mutual understanding among the claimants, all other Contracting Parties, and all other beneficiaries of the continent, and the protection of Antarctica's integrity. The current status just looks awkward for me and is the result of Article IV's ambiguity.

I have my last question, though.

  • 4. Is it fine to remain in this status quo? Has this been hugely beneficial in the utilisation of the Treaty, the continent's resources, and services offered by Antarctic establishments? Will changing this current status negatively impact operations and usual business in Antarctica both short-term and long-term? Or would it be more beneficial than this current state?

Article posted on 30 June 2021, 15:30 (UTC +08:00).

 This free site is ad-supported. Learn more
​