Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Universalism and Title to Territory in Antarctica

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nordic Journal of International Law

The debate about whether international law could or should be universal has often centred on the somewhat nebulous phenomena of the relativity of cultural values, ideas, and use of language. While these are important considerations, this paper hightlights the fact that in the international law of Antarctica, universalism has had the practical legal effect of defining the issue in dispute. Prior to World War Two there were two distinct international legal regimes pertaining to territory in Antarctica. For the South American states the issue at stake was the location of their mutual boundary in territory to which they had long assumed sovereign rights; for the Europeans sovereignty itself was the issue with which they sougth to deal. Once the two regimes came into conflict – at least as regards that portion of Antarctica opposite the South American mainland – it was the European regime, under the guise of being `universal' international law, that came to define the issue in dispute. While the issue has never been settled, universalism has functioned to favour the position of the United Kingdom over those of Chile and Argentina. Sovereignty has remained the core issue in Antarctic law and politics. All writers on Antarctic law and politics who fail to recognize the evolution of two Antarctic legal regimes of which one has defined the current issue in dispute deny implicitly the existence of the Chilean-Argentine regime of boundary definition. Through doing so, they also perpetuate the myth of international law as universal.

Affiliations: 1: Associate Lecturer in Politics, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation