Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
the incorporation of the maritime areas within the Antarctic Treaty area into the remit of
the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). The Antarctic Treaty, mindful
of customary law of the sea, preceded the influential UNCLOS negotiations of the 1970s
and 1980s. On the signing of the Third UN Convention in 1982, it was noticeable that the
Antarctic was not formally mentioned in the text. But the entry into force of UNCLOS had
implications for the Antarctic.
The sovereign rights accruing to coastal states included a 200-nautical-mile exclusive eco-
nomic zone alongside provisions relating to sovereign rights on the extended continental
shelf.
Beyond areas of national jurisdiction, there were areas of common heritage, notably the
deep seabed and the high seas. Under Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, claimant and
non-claimant signatories alike agreed to place to one side their disagreements over sov-
ereignty. However, the declaration of maritime zones by claimant states such as Aus-
tralia$blould be has created some interesting tensions. In November 1979, Australia pro-
claimed a 200-nautical-mile Australian Fishing Zone including the waters of external ter-
ritories including the Australian Antarctic Territory. This was later revised to exclude the
AAT following protests from other parties. Sub-Antarctic island claimants such as Aus-
tralia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have been active in defending their sovereign
rights north of the Antarctic Treaty area of application. The problem lies within the Antarc-
tic Treaty region and what UNCLOS does to the delicate balance between claimant and
non-claimant. In the past, a bi-focal approach to sovereignty had been used to defuse po-
tential tension in that it had been agreed that claimant states could enforce laws involving
their national citizens and flagged vessels. All foreign nationals and vessels were exempted
in order to preserve the accommodation over sovereignty in the Antarctic.
The burning question raised by UNCLOS is whether coastal states exist in the Antarctic.
Are assertions to outer continental shelves in the Antarctic emblematic of either new and/or
enlarged claims? Or are they merely extensions of old claims acknowledged under Article
4 of the Antarctic Treaty? Australia and the other claimant states clearly believe that, not-
withstanding the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, they enjoy coastal state rights. One
manifestation of this conviction is the submission of materials to the UN Commission on
the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) pertaining to the delineation of the extended
coastal shelf (ECS) beyond 200 nautical miles from the coastline. The CLCS, after receipt
of relevant geological and geophysical data from coastal states such as Australia, issued
a recommendation regarding whether a coastal state has demonstrated the existence of an
ECS. The implications of such a move reside in the possible extension of sovereign rights
