Science, People & Politics

THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISPUTE
Britain's, Argentina's and Chile's dispute over Antarctica and sub Antarctica was set in stone on 16th March, 1956 when the U.K.'s efforts to have its separate contentious cases¹ with Argentina and Chile settled by the International Court of Justice failed. The presiding judge, Green H. Hackworth, president of the I.C.J., ordered the cases be removed from the Court's list^2,3.

The order says,

"Whereas, in these circumstances, the Court finds that it has not before it any acceptance by the Government of Argentina of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the dispute which is the subject of the Application submitted to it by the United Kingdom Government and that therefore it can take no further steps upon this Application;

"The Court

"orders that the case shall be removed from the list."

Substituting only Chile for Argentina, the same wording removes Britain's case against Chile from the list.

Britain had filed its applications to institute proceedings ^4,5 against the Republics of Argentina and Chile on 4 May, 1955. Neither Argentina nor Chile would submit to the I.C.J., declaring their cases were irrefutable. Earlier both Chile and Argentina had declined post-World War II efforts by Britain to have the I.C.J review and determine the sovereignty of the contested territories (1947, 1951 and 1953).

To my eye Britain seems to have submitted an overwhelmingly powerful and well founded legal case, but it is impossible to know without seeing countervailing arguments.

After reading Britain's pleading I was left with questions. Is there, could there, or should there be supporting detail for Argentina's claim to inheritance of title from Spain after 1810, the year, according to the World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency in the U.S., that Argentina revolted against the Spanish Empire⁶? Were there reasons that title could not earlier be defended⁷?

Equally interesting is Britain's report to the I.C.J. that in 1914, "negotiations were begun for the cession by Great Britain to Argentina, of the South Orkneys, in return for a Legation site in Buenos Aires, and on condition of respecting any existing British whaling rights." See paragraph 24 (2), page 23 of Britain' pleading in 1955 to institute proceedings at the I.C.J. against the Republic of Argentina⁴. The 1955 pleading goes on to state, "By 1914, the final text of a treaty of cession had been agreed between the two countries but, on a change of Government in Argentina, the new Government declined on financial grounds to complete the transaction." Britain's submission to the I.C.J. asserts that the terms of that draft treaty provided further evidence of Argentina's pre-First World War recognition of British title to the South Orkneys. Britain says in its pleading that in 1928 Argentina explored reopening negotiations to swap British claims to sovereignty in the South Orkneys for a Buenos Aires-based Legation⁸. See paragraph 27, page 25 of Britain's pleading to institute proceedings against the Republic of Argentina ⁴. It would be interesting to know what provision, if any, the I.C.J. has, or should have, for various types of decision pro tem..

THE DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS
Law was not the only route pursued by Britain to resolve its Antarctic dilemma. On 21 October, 1948 Ernest Bevin, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hosted a meeting with Commonwealth counterparts at the Foreign Office to discuss the Antarctic Problem⁹.

FOOTNOTES
1. The territory contested by the U.K. and Chile related to sovereignty over "certain islands and lands" in the Antarctic between longitudes 53° and 80° West and to the south-wards of latitude 58° South.
The UK and Argentina disputed sovereignty over "certain islands and lands in the Antarctic which lie between longitudes 25° and 74° West and to the southwards of latitude 60° South".
2. Antarctica, U.K. v. Argentina, Order, 1956 I.C.J. 12 (Mar. 16).
BEFORE: President: Green H. Hackworth.
http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1956.03.16_antarctica1.htm
Accessed 21st February, 2013.
3. Antarctica, U.K. v. Chile, Order, 1956 I.C.J. 15 (Mar. 16).
BEFORE: President: Green H. Hackworth.
http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1956.03.16_antarctica2.htm
Accessed 21st February, 2013.
4. Antarctica, U.K. v. Argentina. Pleadings. May, 1955.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/9065.pdf
Accessed 22nd February, 2013.
5. Antarctica, U.K. v. Chile. Pleadings. May, 1955.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/27/10783.pdf
Accessed 22nd February, 2013.
6. The Republics of Argentina and Chile were refusing the jurisdiction of an obviously temporal Court. They might have made different arguments to a Roman Catholic Court of Canon Law (See: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM, accessed 23rd February, 2013). In 1493, when Britain was still a Catholic country, Alexander VI issued the bull of demarcation as settlement of Portugal's and Spain's colonial ambitions, drawing a line from Pole to Pole to separate the disputants. In Argentina, during the period covered by this article, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was also the Minister for Public Worship. Britain's pleading to the I.C.J. in support of sovereignty over its claimed Antarctic and sub-Antarctic territories begins with the period 1675-1843, long after the death of the ill-fated Anne Boleyn (c. 1507-36), who, at the time of Henry VIII's excommunication, was his wife, if the time line online from the University of Wisconsin is correct. http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-07.htm.
Further reading about the Bull of Demarcation.
a) Vander Linden H., "Alexander VI and the Demarcation of the Maritime and Colonial Domains of Spain and Portugal, 1493-1494." The American Historical Review, Vol.,XXII - 1.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1836192
Accessed 22nd February, 2013.
b) Brown L.A. (1949), "The Longitude". In, The World of Mathematics, Volume Two. Tempus Books of Microsoft Press. Redmond, Washington. 1988. Ed. Newman J.R.
7. Power dynamics among Britain, US and Argentina, from a British perspective, mid-nineteenth century to 1939, informed by science literacy and awareness of The Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Reference http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/monroe/aa_monroe_doctrine_1.html
accessed 22nd February, 2013. Chapter and research in progress.
8. In 1909 whaling, important for food and armaments, was the economic negotiating chip on the table. In 1928 the economic and power chip had become telegraphy; whaling had moved to the high seas and factory whaling ships, as described in Britain's pleading to the I.C.J.
9. FO463/2.

PAGE 2

Science, People & Politics issn:1751-598x (online) and Helen Gavaghan©.
All rights reserved, and shared by agreement by author, publisher and title.
SEO and page code by publisher, GavaghanCommunications/Helen Gavaghan©.