Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:12:22.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Antarctic Settlement of 1959

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Robert D. Hayton
Robert D. Hayton*
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Antarctic is no longer the virtual unknown of story and legend. Though it will undoubtedly remain a frontier—as much of Alaska has remained a frontier—one consequence of the International Geophysical Year is that policy and operational affairs of the South Polar Regions have gradually become almost “orthodox,” that is, handled on a daily basis by government officials and institutions in the near-normal manner of dealing with any matter in modern bureaucracy and research.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 348 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Actual landings are taken here as the valid point of departure inasmuch as ‘’ discovery” by sighting alone would not convey even inchoate title. See discussion of this point in Hayton R. D., “ The ‘American’ Antarctic,” 50 A.J.I.L. 597-599 (1956).

2 At what is now Hughes Bay, Palmer Peninsula. TJ. S. Dept. of Interior, Office of Geography, Geographic Names of Antarctica 12 (Washington, Jan., 1956).

3 For the purposes of this article, only the most generalized and abbreviated account can be rendered. There are documents and an extensive literature for each country's record and position. See the national sections and the index in Hayton R. D. , National Interests in Antarctica (Washington, annotated bibliography of 1,168 items, 1959, 137 pp.). An exceptionally useful collection in English of the basic claims data and chronologies of Antarctic activities for each interested state are found in Dater H. M., Summary of National Claims with Selected Documents (Washington, 1957, mimeo., 50 pp.); these are reproduced (without the chronologies) in the appendix to Gould L. M., The Polar Regions in Their Relation to Human Affairs 36-54 (New York, 1958). Among recent chronologies of Antarctic expeditions, especially recommended is Roberts B., “Chronological list of Antarctic Expeditions ,” 9 Polar Record 97-134 and 191-239 (Cambridge, Eng., May and Sept., 1958). See also Skelton R. A., “ Explorers’ Maps XIV: The Polar Regions in the 19th Century,” 29 The Geographical Magazine 187-200 (London, 1956-1957). Among recent works see Archdale H. E., “Claims to the Antarctic,” Year Book of World Affairs 242-263 (London, 1958); KnappW. H. C., Antarctica: de Gesshiedenis van het Geheimzinnige Zuidland (Haarlem, 1958, 589 pp.); MelnishkiL., Kum Ledenoto Siirtse na Antarktika (Sophia, 1950, 225 pp.); MonierR. B. and HerbertJ. V., “Antarctica,” 57 Journal of Geography 277-287 (Chicago, Sept., 1958); MünchI. v., “ Völkerrechtsf ragen der Antarktis,” 7 Archiv des Völkerrechts 225-252 (T?bingen, 1958); JessupP. C. and TaubenfeldH. J., Controls for Outer Space and the Antarctic Analogy 135-190, Pt. II : “International Controls for the Antarctic” (New York, 1959); E. Pruck, “ Antarktika—der Sechste Erdteil,” Wehrwissenschaftliche Eundschau, No. 4, p. 203 f. (1956); H. Steinitz, Der 7. Kontinent … esp. pp. 215-284, 287-288 (Bern, 1959); GoldieL. F. E., “International Relations in Antarctica,” 30 Australian Quarterly 9-29 (Sydney, March, 1959). See the simplified claims diagram facing page 349.

4 Although there have been private sentiments expressed to the contrary, Belgium makes no territorial claim. See Pergamevi C., “ La Belgique et 1'Antarctique,” 65 Bulletin de la Societe Eoyale Beige de Géographie 105-131 (Brussels, 1941); Van Osbroeck J., “L'Actualité des Questions Antarctiques et la Belgique,” 61 Bulletin de la Société Royale de Géographie d'Anvers 42-58 (Antwerp, 1946-1947).

5 For the full story, see Dater H. M., Aviation in the Antarctic (Washington, U. S. Antarctic Projects Office, July, 1959, mimeo., 20 pp).

6 In the late 1930's the Japanese press agitated for a Japanese claim; the Japanese Exploration Society urged likewise in 1939. Although Japan directed a diplomatic note to Chile in 1940 reserving all her rights (quoted in O. Pinochet de la Barra, La Antartida Chilena o Territorio Chileno Antartica 176-177 (Santiago, 1944)), no formal claim was ever asserted. Japan renounced ‘’ all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area “ in the Peace Treaty of 1951 (Art. 2 e of Ch. II ) ; for text of Japanese Peace Treaty, see 3 U. S. Treaties 3169; 46 A.J.I.L. Supp. 71 (1952).

7 A German “ claim “ has often been drawn as a truncated sector from 17° E. Long, to 5° W. Long. That general region now bears the name of New Schwabenland. None theless, no official announcement was ever made. As a matter of postwar tact, Germanyhas refrained from re-entering the field, though many in Germany maintain a high level of interest in Polar problems in general and Antarctica in particular. It is not anticipated that there will be a revival of official German interest. However, for discussion of a projected expedition, etc., see BergerE. M., “ Antarktis-Landnahme und Erforschung,” 27 Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 1-4 (Bad Godesberg, 1956).

8 See 1 Dept. of State Bulletin (July, 1939).

9 Sweden was early in the running with the private expedition of 1901-1903 under Dr. Otto Nordenskjöld. Subsequent participation did not occur, however, until the Norsk Polarinstitut's joint expedition of 1949-1952. Sweden makes no claim and has displayed no intention to participate actively on any regular basis.

10 Besides the territory deep behind Norway's claim there is a major “ sector “ (Marie Byrd Land) which is not yet claimed, from 90° W. to 150° W. Long, between the Chilean and the New Zealand sectors. For analysis of the principles involved, see esp. FinchG. A., “Sovereignty over Polar Areas,” in his Three Problems of International Law 34-42 (Havana, 1954); for the Soviet view, MolodstovS. V., Sovremennoe mezhdunarodno-pravovoe polozhenie Antarktiki (Moscow, 1954, 48 pp); also other works cited in Hayton, National Interests in Antarctica, op. cit. note 3 above. It is no secret that states now claimants would be pleased if the United States would claim this portion, thereby at least tacitly recognizing the validity of the sector principle and, by implication, supporting the other claimants in their own sectors. Marie Byrd Land is most difficult terrain to penetrate. Until 1960 no landing had been made on its coastline; several recent attempts by the United States had been defeated. The challenge of these only remaining unseen shores was heightened when it became known that the Soviet Union planned to accomplish the feat in the area of the Bellingshausen Sea. The U. S. icebreakers Glacier and Burton Island finally reached Thurston Peninsula (between the Seas of Amundsen and Bellingshausen) in February, 1960, after laboring through nearly a thousand miles of ice. Many new landfalls and other important observations were recorded, including a virtually certain determination that Thurston is an island, not a peninsula. A group of scientists was disembarked.

11 The British claim includes all of the Argentine sector and all but the westernmost ten degrees of the Chilean sector. This is the only part of Antarctica where such a conflict of formal claims occurs.

12 Text in Chile, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Memoria … 1949, p. 314; 31 Dept. of State Bulletin 817 (1954).

13 For a critique of the three positions see Hayton, ‘’ Chile, Argentina and Great Britain in the Antarctic,” 1955-1957 Inter-American Juridical Yearbook 119-125 (Washington, 1958); ZavattiS., “L'Antartide; Aspetti generali e Questioni politiehe,” 31 L ‘Universo 645-659 (Florence, 1951); also the selected references in E.Hayton, “ Bibliografia sobre política y derecho en la Antártida,” 1 Revista Argentina de Política 135-154 (Buenos Aires, 1958).

14 19 Dept. of State Bulletin 301 (1948). Approached were Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the U. K.

15 U.N. Doc. A/3118/Add. 1, Sept. 13, 1956; U.N. Doc. A/3852, July 15, 1958 (with Explanatory Memorandum). See “Issues before the Eleventh General Assembly,” International Conciliation, No. 510, pp. 135-140 (Nov., 1956); Hayton, “Polar Problems and International Law,” 52 A.J.I.L. 746-766, esp. 760 (1958). India has persistently manifested interest in Antarctica, pursuing a policy favoring United Nations treatment of the problems as a concern of the world at large. In addition, Brazil, Uruguay and Peru have speculated, mostly on an informal basis, about possible claims and have seemed at least to pine for participation in decisions about the Antarctic. In 1956 Uruguay officially named a “Comisión encargada de estudiar los derechos del Uruguay sobre la Antartida.” On Peru, see Fernández PuyóG., “El problema antártico en el cuadrante sudamericano,” 14 Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional 222-249 (1954), and 15 ibid. 3-15 (1955). On Brazil see Bouças W. F., “ Antártida,” Mensário de Cultura Militar (Bio de Janeiro, Jan.-Feb., 1956); Lima F., “Un pedazode la Antártida pertenece al Brasil,” El País (AsunciÓn, July 23, 1955); Eibeiro J., “Só o Brazil e á Bussia tên direito a Antártica,” O Globo 2 (Rio de Janeiro, May 29, 1956); Bibeiro J., “Direitos do Brazil á Antártida,” Revista da Semana (Rio de Janeiro, April 30, 1955).

16 Gould, op. cit. 21; BaarJ., “Bed Threat from Antarctica: TJ. S. and Other Nations are Worried about Russian Bases Build-up and Submarine Missile Launching Potential,'’ 5 Missiles and Rockets 15-16 (Washington, 1959).

17 See, for example, the formal and informal remarks of John Hanessian, Jr., Alan F. Neidle and Hayton on the panel, “Legal Problems and the Political Situation in the Polar Areas,” 1958 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 135-136, 143- 144, 158-164, 166-174 (Washington, 1958).

18 The IGY was carried out by a Special Committee (C.S.A.G.I.) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (I.C.S.U.). In many countries the scientific societies and the academies are wholly or in part government-controlled, but the emphasis is so clearly scientific that the I.C.S.TJ. has been able to preserve a relatively independent, non-governmental character. The Antarctic figured prominently in the program. Regional Conferences on the Antarctic for IGY purposes were held, starting in 1955. The Soviet Union sent a delegate and took a leading part from the beginning.

19 See SullivanWalter, “The International Geophysical Year,” International Conciliation, No. 521, esp. pp. 318-326 (“Antarctica“) (Jan. 1958); J. Hanessian, Jr., “Antarctica: Current National Interests and Legal Realities,” 1958 Proceedings. American Society of International Law 145-164.

20 38 Dept. of State Bulletin 910 (1958).

21 Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, by diplomatic note dated May 2, 1958. 38 Dept. of State Bulletin 911-912 (1958). For discussion, see Jessup and Taubenfeld, Controls for Outer Space 172-174; Hayton, “Polar Problems and International Law,” loc. cit. 756-760.

22 See Dept. of State Press Releases No. 713 (Oct. 9, 1959) and No. 719 (Oct. 13, 1959), 41 Dept. of State Bulletin 650 (1959). An effort was made by the Soviet Union to broaden the conference; representation was actively sought by Poland. See the press release of the Polish Embassy in Washington, “Poland requests Participation in Antarctic Conference” (with two-page background), April 3, 1959. For many years Poles have been interested in matters of the Arctic, particularly Svalbard. The Russians supported a Polish expedition to Antarctica in collaboration with the Soviet program, and plans were laid to turn over one base, in Bunger Oasis, completely to Poland. A Polish contingent actually initiated work during 1958-1959, but did not participate the second year. See the press release of the Polish Embassy in Washington “Poland to Send Second Research Expedition to Antarctica,” Oct. 16, 1959. Funds have been earmarked for a Polish party in the 1960-1961 season. It is too early to evaluate the long-run rôle of Poland in Antarctica, but see the works of Jacek Machowski, including Antarktyka (Warsaw, 3rd ed., 1959, 304 pp.; on claims, see p. 140 f.) ; Zdobywcy Bialego Ladu, Historia wypraw i odkryc antarktycznych (Warsaw, 1959, 495 pp.); “Problem Antarktyki,” Sprawy Miedzynarodowe, No. 25 (Warsaw, 1953); “Atak Nauki na Biegun Poludniowy,” Problemy No. 1 (Warsaw, 1956); also E. Bierzanek, “Boszczenia Pánstw do obszarów Antarktydy,” 3 Gospodarka Morska (Danzig, 1950). Italy has also talked about launching an Antarctic program.

23 Dept. of State Press Release, No. 723 (Oct. 15, 1959); 41 Dept. of State Bulletin 650 (1959).

24 Conference on Antarctica (Washington), Doc. No. 13, pp. 1-2 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.).

25 Ibid., Doc. 15, pp. 1, 3-4 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.).

26 Ibid., Doc. 5, pp. 1, 4-5 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.). Only the need for meteorological observation has managed to bring the Union to engage in any actual work, and this has been limited to sub-Antarctic islands. See E. Teague, “Behind Rhodes’ Back. South Africa lags behind in new world race to exploit the wealth of Antarctic's lost continent,” 7 Libertas 22-27 (Johannesburg, 1947); G. C. L. Bertram, “Antarctic Prospect,” 33 International Affairs 143-153 (1957).

27 Conference on Antartica (Washington), Doc. 12, pp. 1-2 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.).

28 .Ibid., Doc. 7, pp. 1-3 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.).

29 Ibid., Doc. 9, p. 2 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.).

30 Ibid., Doc. 11, pp. 1-3, 5-6 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.).

31 Ibid., Doe. 10, pp. 1, 3-4 (Oct. 15, 1959, mimeo.).

32 Also established were Credentials, Drafting and Style Committees. Herman Phleger, head of the TJ. S. Delegation, was elected Chairman of the Conference. Ambassador Paul C. Daniels then took his place as IT. S. delegate; George H. Owen (Director of the Antarctic Staff, Dept. of State), alternate. For available details of participation, organization and progress of the meetings, see Final Act, Dec. 1, 1959, reprinted below, pp. 476-483; Provisional List of Participants, Conference on Antarctica, Doc. No. 3 (Oct. 13, 1959), and ibid., press releases No. 1 (Oct. 16, 1959), No. 2 (Oct. 20, 1959), and No. 3 (Oct. 23, 1959); 41 Dept. of State Bulletin 650-651, 912-914 (1959).

33 Conference on Antarctica, The Antarctic Treaty (Dec. 1, 1959, 52 unnumbered pages, in English, French, Russian and Spanish, mimeo.). To date (Feb. 1, 1960), no ratifications had been deposited. 41 Dept. of State Bulletin 914-917 (Dec. 21, 1959); Final Act, ibid. 912-914. The English text is reproduced below in this Journal, pp. 477-483. See W. Sullivan, “ 1 2 Nations to Sign Polar Pact Today,” New York Times, Dee. 1, 1959, and ‘’ The Spirit of Antarctica,'’ ibid., Dee. 4, 1959.

34 Art. IV, par. 2. For an anticipatory discussion of this basic proposal for the “freezing” of the legal status quo, see comments by A. F. Niedle on “Legal Problems and the Political Situation in the Polar Areas,'’ loc. cit. 168-169. It should be kept in mind that the gentleman's agreement allowing no political gains lapsed with the IGY. From Jan. 1, 1959, until such time as the treaty enters into force, the activities of the Powers in Antarctica, including the U.S.S.E., receive “full credit” for claims purposes, barring some intervening accord or disavowal to the contrary.

35 Art. V, par. 1. Par. 2 provides that, should general international agreements be concluded on the use of nuclear energy, this provision may, under certain conditions, be superseded.

36 Shelf ice extends seaward, providing a thick and semi-permanent surface continuous from the mainland, partly touching bottom and partly afloat. There is now a more novel problem. Most of West Antarctica's land is mountain-top ‘ ‘ islands “ in a “ sea of ice . “ A broad below-sea-level channel (frozen solid) extends from the Boss Sea to the Bellingshausen Sea. It has not been determined finally whether there is such a connection between the Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea (via the Filchner ice shelf), but it is now known that any such trough would be limited to a narrow passage close along the Antarctic Horst, if it exists at all. Indications are that there probably is a narrow ridge joining Palmer Peninsula (through the Sentinel Mountains) to the Horlick Mountains, the Queen Maud Range and East Antarctica. For textual and graphic representation of this important new evidence, see C. E. Bentley, A. P. Crary, N. A. Ostenso and E. C. Thiel, “Structure of West Antarctica,” 131 Science 131-136 (Jan. 15, 1960), and sources there cited; also House Committee on Appropriations (Subcommittee on Independent Offices), National Science Foundation. National Academy of Sciences, Hearings … Report on the International Geophysical Year 39-45, 53, 60, 97-98 (Feb., 1959). A more or less land-locked ice-cap in firm union with the bedrock beneath is, because of its origin, probably made up chiefly of frozen fresh water, or compressed and transformed snow, not frozen salt water. For all practical purposes it is as perpetually solid as the land it binds together and “ sits on.” What industries or actions of the high seas can be exercised on and in such a medium? Whether certain portions of Antarctica are shown to be only islands bound together by solid ice or land depressed by the great weight of the ice, it would seem proper to modify the concept of territory to accommodate such “glacies firma.“

37 That is, one that does not demonstrate “ its interest … by conducting substantial scientific research activity there, such as the establishment of a scientific station or the despatch of a scientific expedition.” Art. IX, par. 2. This manner of designating privileged status for the original signatories and acceding states with real Antarctic programs appears throughout the treaty. As a convenience members of this “governing group” are hereinafter referred to as “original and active” parties.

38 Art. VII, par. 1. Similarly, termination of observers’ appointments must be communicated.

39 Including those merely proceeding from a signatory's territory and not participated in or sponsored by it or its nationals.

40 Art. VII, par. 5. Merely as an accounting procedure, this obligation will keep many hands busy in national institutes, foreign offices and navy departments. Not only must one's own data be compiled and transmitted on a timely basis, but the mass of information received from other countries must be sifted, evaluated and disseminated. Much information of this sort is exchanged today, chiefly on an informal basis and often only when it is asked for, but the treaty would institutionalize these exchanges and step up volume considerably.

41 Of course, political refugees are possible in Antarctica without the treaty, but at present the amount of personnel interchange is very slight. Some interesting growth in municipal law may result from the inspection and exchange parties. The leader of any scientific group or observer party will need authority to settle at least minor disputes among his subordinates; there is always the additional possibility of criminal or civil altercations involving a member (or members) of a country's scientific team and the same country's observer team. Of course, incidents can arise between the members of scientific or observer teams from two different countries while they are within the area claimed by a third state. It is not clear what part, if any, the claimant Power would have in such a matter.

42 Art. VIII, par. 1. Emphasis added.

43 Art. IX, par. 1. Emphasis added. No specific procedure is given for the calling of either regular or emergency meetings. The conference recommended that the governments have representatives meet in Washington two months after the signing and thereafter as convenient, pending the entry into force of the treaty. These consultations were to recommend desirable interim arrangements. Final Act, loc. cit., 6th par. In other words, instead of merely awaiting the ratification, the “meetings” provided for in Art. IX are to be initiated on an extra-treaty basis, really carrying right on almost where the Washington Conference and its preliminary talks left off.

44 Art. IX, par. la-l f.

45 Art. IX, par. 2. See note 37 above.

46 Art. IX, par. 3. Otherwise, following the wording literally, reports could be sent only during the formal meetings.

47 In the U.S. efforts continue for the establishment of senior institutions. See the “Rivers Bill “ (H. E. 8480, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., July 30, 1959, or the identical H. E. 8481), and in the Senate, the Richard E. Byrd Antarctic Commission Bill (S.764, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 29, 1959). Hearings have not yet been held. See also “Antarctica is Important to the United States and the World,” extension of remarks of Senator R. W. Yarborough, with opinions and essay of E. Hayton, in 105 Cong. Rec. A 4810- A 4811 (June 5, 1959). The Deputy U. S. Antarctic Projects Officer, James E. Mooney, is active in the advancement of such legislation for the balancing of governmental and independent interests—scientific, logistical and security.

48 Art. XI, par. 1. How can a regional treaty make peaceful settlement generally any more of an obligation than it is already under Art. 2, par. 3, and other provisions of the Charter of the United Nations?

49 Art. XI, par. 2. The efforts of some countries, including the United States and Great Britain, to secure some compulsory jurisdiction were completely unsuccessful. In line with previous well-known positions, the Soviet Union and the Latin American countries were unwilling to accept obligatory adjudication of disputes.

50 For the meeting itself, there is no reference to any formula for taking a decision to recommend “measures” or, for that matter, to dispose of any other business.

51 Art. IX, par. 5. Automatic performance of the duties imposed by the treaty is not singled out for special mention, although the exercise of rights is often dependent upon observance of obligations by others.

52 Art. XII, par. 1 a. Unanimous approval of this group is required.

53 They will not be bound against their will, however, since the contractual status of such a party is automatically discontinued if that state's ratification of any approved change is not deposited within 2 years after the change comes into force. Art. XII, par. 16. Although Art. XII, par. 1 a does not delay or qualify the entry into full force of an amendment, subpar. b operates to release such “unwilling” parties. It is clearly the intent of the treaty, pending ratification or termination, not to enforce the new obligations or terms against acceding parties not “active.” If one of the “original and active” Powers is “unwilling,” the amendment does not enter into force in the first place. On the other hand, original signatories have, for the first 30 years, absolutely no means of release from the treaty; “active” parties by accession, by becoming inactive, may, if an amendment enters into force, get out of the treaty altogether simply by failure to ratify the amendment.

54 There is no special mechanism provided for the calling of this conference, or express provision for subsequent review conferences, should the treaty be perpetuated. Participation in this conference is the only rô1e given the acceding Power not active.

55 Expressly provided for in Art. XII, par. 2 c.

56 Art. X, obviously not limited only to parties to the treaty. Emphasis added. No action is to be taken in this connection inconsistent with the U.N. Charter.

57 41 Dept. of State Bulletin 912 (1959); below, p. 483.

58 See JenksC. W., The Common Law of Mankind 366-381 (Ch. 8, “ An International Regime for Antarctica“) (New York, 1959); SenP. C., “Antarctic Rivalries,” Contemporary Review 41-44 (No. 1093, London, Jan., 1957); I. Munch v., loc. cit.; E. Shackleton, “Antarctica, the Case for Permanent International Control—A Possible Solution?” World Affairs 23-25 (London, May-June, 1959); E. W. Van Wagenen et al., “Control of Open Territory,” in Strengthening the United Nations 213-216 (“Relationship of the United Nations to Antarctica“) (New York, 1957); ArmstrongP., “Antarctica: The First World Territory?” Pall Mall Quarterly 36-38 (London, Spring, 1958); JessupP. C. and H. J. Taubenfeld, “Outer Space, Antarctica, and the United Nations,” 13 International Organization 363-379 (Boston, 1959); LissitzynO. J., “The American Position on Outer Space and Antarctica,” 53 A.J.I.L. 126- 131 (1959); Hayton, in “Legal Problems and the Political Situation in the Polar Areas,” loc. cit. 171-174, and “Polar Problems and International Law,” loc. cit. 763-765.

59 The North Atlantic Treaty in its original conception and wording was, after all, no more adequate.

60 To the extent that certain navies will require missions and ‘’ exercise'’ fully to justify themselves, it can be expected that there will be pressure to continue marine oriented programs. To a lesser extent the same may be said of the position of other armed services. On balance, there will probably be a less consistent effort and in general smaller programs by those countries whose limited national funds are needed desperately in many other ways, such as housing, sanitation, education, the financing of imports, and internal development.

61 On two previous occasions India allowed herself to be persuaded to withdraw the question because of the firm opposition of Argentina and Chile and also, the second time, because of the delicate nature of the pending negotiations. Once the treaty has been ratified by all signatories, it is not likely that the same arguments for postponement or withdrawal would prevail.

62 See Illingwortb F., “Airliners over the Antarctic,” 32 New Commonwealth 427- 430 (London, Oct. 29, 1956); BertramC., Arctic and Antarctic, a Prospect of the Polar Regions (Cambridge, Eng., 2d ed., 1958, 123 pp.), and Antarctica Today and Tomorrow (Cambridge, Eng., 1958, 28 pp.); BerzunzaC. B., “ L as regiones polares y su significación mundial,” 67 Boletin de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografia y Estadística 1-92 (Mexico, Jan.-Feb., 1949); Sir PriestlyE., “Twentieth-Century Man against Antarctica,” 13 Advancement of Science 3-16 (London, 1956); Carr B. M., “Claims to Sovereignty—Antarctica,” 28 Southern Calif. Law Rev. 386-400 (1956); V. E. Fuchs, “Scientific Research in Antarctica,” Scientific Monthly 52-53 (Washington, July, 1954); J. S. Roucek, “ The Geopolitics of Antarctica and the Falkland Islands,” 22 World Affairs Interpreter 44-56 (1951); Jessup and Taubenfeld, Controls for Outer Space, esp. 160-167; 8. Zavatti, “ II nuovo limite australe dell'eccumene,” 8 Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana 497-504 (Rome, Nov.-Dec, 1954); New York Times, March 3, 1959 (statements by Dr. Paul Siple).

63 Eight nuclear test-monitoring sites, for example, have been allocated to Antarctica in the 1958 technical report by the 3 nuclear Powers. 39 Dept. of State Bulletin 452, 460 (1958). See many of the references in National Science Foundation, Bibliography on the Economic and Social Implications of Scientific Research and Development (Washington, 1959, annotated, 53 pp.); also Senate Foreign Relations Committee, United States Foreign Policy, Possible Nonmilitary Scientific Developments and their Potential Impact on Foreign Policy Problems of the United States, a Study prepared … by Stanford Research Institute … No. 2 (Sept., 1959, 100 pp.). Because of peculiar characteristics, the South Pole with its ample and stable terra firma platform may become a center for controlling and tracking, if not for launching, inter-planetary space travel as well as Polar-orbited earth satellites. Uninterrupted observation of, and communications with, deep space probes is currently feasible only from one of the Poles.

64 See V. Eomanovsky, Arctique et Antarctique. Les régions polaires sont-elles en voie de colonisation? (Paris, 1947, 62 pp.).

65 Four scientific unions are also S.C.A.E. members. On S.C.A.B. see Statement of Dr. L. M. Gould Concerning Antarctic Programs, in House Committee on Appropriations, op. cit. 99-102; Hanessian, loc. cit., esp. 149-150 and sources there cited; 9 Polar Record 360-372 and 475-487 (Jan., 1959, and May, 1959), where the first two S.C.A.E. Bulletins are reproduced; P. Law, “The IGY in Antarctica,” 21 Australian journal of Science 285-294 (Sydney, 1959). It was anticipated that Poland would become the thirteenth active participant on a continuing basis in Antarctic work, in the meetings provided for by the treaty, and as a member of S.C.A.E. Because of failure of the 1959-60 Polish program to materialize, representation in neither group can yet be granted.

66 Telegram to Rep. Albert Thomas, Feb. 17, 1959, pub. in House Committee on Appropriations, op. cit. 4. On TJ. S. policy generally, see the series by C. L. Sulzberger, “Frozen, Lonely Continent of Death,” “The United States’ Antarctic Policy,” and ‘’ Some Anomalies on Our Last Frontier,'’ New York Times, Oct. 28 and 31, Nov. 4,1959.

67 From “Now Hear This” by Edward A. Bacon (Deputy Asst. Secretary of the Army), written in Antarctica, season of 1957-58. See “Antarctic Verse,” 2 Navy, the Magazine of Sea Power 28-29 (No. 1, Jan., 1959).