Antarctica. A vast expanse of icy wasteland, frigid tundra. Antarctica is the largest unclaimed land mass on planet earth, and it's also the largest international affairs time bomb. The situation in Antarctic is docile now, but already nations are gearing up waiting for the date to tick to 2048 so they can make a grab at the beautiful, and possibly lucrative continent. To understand the situation in Antarctica, and how international law is governs the region, you have to understand the history. Multiple nations have claims on Antarctica, seven nations made claims prior to a treaty, which will be discussed later, being drafted. The nations who struck out said claims were Britain, Norway, France, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile. They divided continent into land claims that were boundaries where dictated by meridians (the lines of longitude). However many of these claims overlapped with each other, and they were never really acted upon. Until that was cold war came about the …show more content…
No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present treaty is in force. (Art IV, Antarctica Treaty)
The article goes on then to state that Russia and the United States maintain a "basis of claim" in the Antarctica, which means when the time comes they may take territory on the continent as their own. All these states, including ones who have no claims (such as China, which has been investing in the building their presence in the region), want what is in the Antarctic, but the treaty for the time being bars them from doing so. However with economic pressures mounting, and the climate warming, it is only a matter of time before someone decides to exploit the Antarctic
Under the UN 1982 treaty, a state’s territorial sea extends twelve nautical miles from the national coastline (Slomanson 305). Within this area, Ecuador exercises its sovereignty over these waters as if it were a landmass (Slomanson 305). All aspects of the sea are under its control, including the seabed and airspace. Furthermore, Ecuador is allowed to impose laws that regulate the territory and consume resources that lie inside this defined area. Within this territorial sea, Ecuador “must exercise its sovereign power in this adjacent strip of water” (Slomanson 305). Additionally, Ecuador is expected to chart this water and to provide warning of navigational hazards (Slomanson 305). However, Ecuador did not act upon this and was “lax in enforcing it”. In 1951, the International Court of Justice issued this statement in response to a ruling:
A complex collection of more than 1800 separate islands forms the Canadian Archipelago and Canada’s Arctic territory. 1 Within recent history the arctic has gained popular attention from governments both domestically and internationally. The rise in global climate temperatures accounts for longer, ice free Arctic summers, higher levels of resource exploration and development, and less challenges to access in the Arctic. Canadian sovereignty over Arctic lands and islands is undisputed with the single exception of Hans Island, a 1.3 square kilometer island claimed by Denmark.2 Currently what is disputed is the Canadian assertion of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage waterway. The passage which would facilitate international shipping through the sovereign Canadian archipelago island system, links the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean. Its widest and deepest course would take the Northwest passage from “Lancaster Sound through Barrow Straight into Viscount Melville Sound an onwards through M’Clure Straight and into the Beaufort Sea.”3 Historically Arctic ice made this route impossible to cross, but rising temperatures are changing that. The government of Canada believes that the Northwest Passage is situated within internal Canadian waterers, thereby falling under Canadian sovereign jurisdiction, subject to Canadian domestic laws. With the possibility of the passage becoming a international shipping rout, many countries including the United States do not agree with this claim. They suggest the Northwest passage should be an international straight subject to the International Law and the doctrine of transit passage.4
Although Frobisher's gold mines were soon forgotten his three voyages to the Arctic sparked not only interest in a north west passage to the Orient but also the idea of English sovereignty over northern North America. Over the next three hundred years British exploration and trade gradually penetrated Arctic Canada and Britain's right to possession of the vast area was accepted by other nations. In 1880 British sovereignty over the area was passed to Canada. In 1999 the Territory of Nunavut was established returning a measure of sovereignty to the descendents of the original inhabitants - the Inuit. In the very area that Frobisher had claimed for his Queen four hundred years before lies the capital of Nunavut - Iqaluit.
have ended there; however, the official wording of the treaty that was signed turned out to be
Yet, this way of life was altered drastically with the increasing presence of the Canadian government in the region. In the early 1900's the government of Canada began to take notice of the increasingly heavy flow of foreign ships in the arctic waters. It was not the presence of the ships the Canadian government were concerned with, but rather the revenue they were losing (Matthiasson, 36). To overcome this problem, Canada loosely asserted its sovereignty over the region more for economic reasons than anything else. Even then, the Inuit people continued to live the way they always had in spite of the Canadian laws they were supposedly constrained by now. Forty years later, Canada's sovereignty in the Northwest Territories was threatened again, but this time politically by the United States in 1946. Canadian officials were informed that the United States was planning to construct several weather stations in the High Arctic Islands. These stations were intended to collect climatic information as well as serve as a defense measure against possible Soviet attack (Marcus, 54). Nervous about the loss of the territory, the Canad...
Great Britain refused to let the Spanish take back their now independent colonies. As free countries the new Spanish-American nations could trade more goods with Great Britain. However, if Spain regains control of their former colonies then trade with Great Britain would decrease drastically ("Monroe Doctrine" 617). The Russian Tsar attempted to extend his interest of expansion in North America. In 1821 Russia had claims on the North Western coast of the North American continent as low as the 51st parallel, deep into the Oregon Territory (Migill 595). On September 14th of the same year Tsar Alexander I issued an Imperial Ukase (decree), saying that no foreign vessels could come within 100 Italian miles of Russian territory. Although the decree was never enforced, John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State at the time, strongly opposed it. Adams felt that many regions of North America were still unexplored such as Alaska and North Western Canada.
The Doctrine of terra nullius is “land that is uninhibited” or “land that belongs to no-one” was used in association with the original British Settlers. When the British settlers arrived, a lot of issues had risen as they ignored the indigenous Australians and regarded them as “not human” who owned land even though they had practiced traditions and customs for hundreds and thousands of years. The British treated Australia as terra Nullius. However due to the doctrine of Terra Nullius it states that Indigenous Australians could not sell or assign any land, nor could any individual person to retain or acquire it, besides from the distribution of royalty. According to international law the British were only able to take possession of a country through only 3 different ways. 1- If the country was uninhabited meaning that British could claim ownership of that land 2- if the country was inhabited Britain would have to seek permission from the owners of the land. In this case it would be the Aboriginal people and they would have to purchase it for ...
Congress established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1980, over the strenuous objections of oil companies like Exxon and British Petroleum. As a compromise with the oil companies, lawmakers designated the refuge's coastal plain as a “study area,” leaving it in limbo until future lawmakers ruled whether to protect it or not. For the last 20 years, Arctic advocates, including the Gwich’in and religious and conservation groups, have urged Congress to protect the integrity of the refuge by designating the coastal plain as “wilderness.[i]” With several bills languishing, Arctic advocates are now appealing to the President — who can preserve the area by designating the coastal plain a National Monument.
In March 1967 Britain agreed that it might be possible to cede sovereignty of the Falklands to Argentina, as long as the islanders agreed. (7) While the Argentines may have viewed this as a major concession, Britain had really given up very little. The Falkland islanders were quite resolute in their desire to remain subjects of the Queen.
Arctic sovereignty is an important issue for Canadians, because the Arctic makes up a significant amount of our land. Conflicts have arisen between many countries such as Denmark, Norway, Canada, the United States, and Russia on who should have sovereignty over the arctic region. As a result the Arctic council has been formed to find solutions to problems that arise from issues regarding the arctic region. However the Arctic Council has not been effective in accomplishing many things in terms of action. Another concern that Canadians have is the impact of global warming on Arctic sovereignty. Additionally, the conflict over the Arctic has also caused concern between the relationship of Canada with the United States. While this may be a major
Both parties believed they had a rightful, historical claim over the Falkland Islands previous to 1982 when the conflict ensued. The United Kingdom’s justification was that an English explorer had been the first to set foot on and colonize the islands in 1690. Even when Argentinian inhabitants colonized the land in 1823, the British gradually replaced them and inhabited the land for over 150 years. In contrast, the Argentine’s claim rested on continuity from Spain, and on a 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement where the British had made no claim of sovereignty (35). The modern history of this conflict began in 1965 with the UN’s involvement on the matter, but became prominent in 1981. The UN strongly advised that the two resolve the issue peacefully; paranoid reverberations from the Cold War were still universally existent at this time. Argentina and Britain both agreed that they did not want to combat; this was especially the case for Argentina, which was undergoing changes in power regime, and suffering from economic issues and a ...
Africa, also know as the “dark continent” encompasses the second biggest landmass but it has only twenty-two percent of the earth’s land surface. (The United States could fit within the Sahara desert alone).
Being an international student is exciting. It offers a lot of exposure and scope for improvement. Canada has a lot of institutions that accept foreign students, but before that, the practical difficulties an international student might face in the country should be noted.
This essay will focus on the debate around Kosovo qualifying as a state under International law. Particular attention will be drawn to the criteria established by the Montevideo convention that sets out characteristics which institutes statehood (Redman 2002, 339). This criterion includes: permanent population, defined territory, government efficiency and the capacity to enter into relations with other states (Dugard 2005, 83-84). Through the analysis of Kosovo’s history one will also begin to understand if it is recognised by other states. Lastly, one will see how this case study contributes to the debate around the nature of international law.
First of all, we need to know the definition of the subjects of international law. In the perspective of legal theories, to identify the subjects of international law must be based on these following basic signals: The participation in international legal relations that be adjusted by the international law; having the will of independence in international activities; having a full rights and obligations severally toward other objects under the scope to adjust of international law; ability of shoulder the international legal responsibility for the acts executed by object. Generally, objects of international law are the entities that are participating in, or may have the ability to participate in the international legal relations independently. They have the full legal international rights and obligations for the acts executed by object.