Problems posed by attempts to apply a claimant's domestic legislation beyond its own nationals in Antarctica

Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 11, Issue 3-4, 2008, Pages 207-220

  Hemmings, Alan D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Antarctic treaty system; Antarctica; Humane society international; Whaling

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL HUNTING; ANTARCTICA; ASSERTIVENESS; AUSTRALIA; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONFLICT; COURT; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; INDUSTRY; JAPAN; JAPANESE; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LAW SUIT; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 63149146653     PISSN: 13852140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom.
2. Argentina, Chile, United Kingdom.
3. Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom
4. 402 UNTS 71 (1 December 1959).
5. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2004] FCA 1510; [2005] FCA 664 [2006] FCAFC 116; [2007] FAC 124; [2008] FAC 3; [2008] FCA 36. See R.Baird and C. Le Feurve "Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd" (2008) INSERT EDITION NUMBER Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law Page numbers
6. This terms refers to the various Antarctic instruments and their subsidiary recommendations, in particular the Antarctic Treaty 1959 402 UNTS 71 and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 30 ILM 1455 ('the Environmental Protocol') plus the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 19 ILM 841 ('CCAMLR').
7. See the Final Reports of the Antarctic Treary Consultative Meeting (ATCM) or CCAMLR Commission for evidence of the exchanges on sovereignty between Argentina and the UK.
8. 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, Chapter II (Territory), Article 2e.
9. Shirley V. Scott "Japan's renunciation of territorial rights in Antarctica and Australian diplomacy" (1999) 35 Polar Record 99-106.
10. Robin Kay (ed) Documents on New Zealand External Relations, vol. III: The ANZUS Pact and the Treaty of Peace with Japan (Wellington, New Zealand Government Printer: 1985) 1181.
11. 161 UNTS 74.
12. Antarctic Treaty Article VI and subsequent interpretation of Art VII 5a obligations as not including whaling expeditions; Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Article VI; Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty Final Act and linkage of EIA obligations at Article 8 to Antarctic Treaty Art VII 5.
13. See Alan D. Hemmings, Karen N. Scott & Michelle Rogan-Finnemore "Broadening the duty in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment across the legal instruments applying in Antarctica" Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Society of International Law Canberra 28-30 June 2007 at (8 June 2008).
14. There is a widespread perception - across positions on whaling - that the prime reason some would like to introduce cetacean issues into the Arctic Treaty System (ATS) is precisely the failure of the International Whaling Commission to resolve these issues.
15. For example, a paper the author wrote for the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) for a CCAMLR Scientific Committee meeting "Antarctic marine ecosystem research in the CCAMLR area" SC-CAMLR-XXIV/BG/20 (2005) examining aspects of Japan's JARPA II project, was accepted for tabling, but neither allowed to be verbally introduced, nor discussed. The discussion initiated by New Zealand at the 2007 ATCM regarding the Nisshin Maru incident was extremely circumscribed, and Japan closed the discussion. For more detail see Hemmings, Scott & Rogan-Finnemore at note 13.
16. ILM 1455.
17. ILM 841.
18. Chile stated that, in its opinion, the ATS did not prohibit building a facility and indicated that according to Chilean legislation a public facility could be leased or made over as a concession to a tour operator(Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Report at 37 (Norway, WP 4 XXVII ATCM 2004)).
19. Regulations Relating to Protection of the Environment in Antarctica 1995 (Norway)
20. Ibid at s 2.
21. Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 (Norway) s 2(a)
22. Above note 19, Chapter 3.
23. Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (17 April 2008). ASOC consists of over 100 organisations from around the world.
24. James Barnes "Why the White Wilderness needs our Care" BBC News 17 April 2008 at (9 June 2008).
25. See in particular the Outline of Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth as Amicus Curiae at .
26. ABC Television "Hell Or High Water" Australian Story 11 February 2008 at (June 8 2008).
27. Alan D. Hemmings, Lorne K. Kriwoken & Julia Jabour "Looking Forward, Looking South: An Enduring Australian Antarctic Interest" in Lorne K. Kriwoken, Julia Jabour & Alan D. Hemmings (eds) Looking South: Australia's Antarctic Agenda (Federation Press, Leichhardt: 2007) 191-196.
28. Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 1994 (Aust).
29. Instructions to Australian Antarctic Division Voyage Leaders - Attachment A to Australian Attorney-General Outline of Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth as Amicus Curiae (2005) at (9 June 2008).
30. See for example, Anthony Bergin & Marcus Haward "Fiozen Assets: Securing Australia's Antarctic Future" (2007) 34 Strategic Insights;
31. Barry Patterson "Slicing the Ice" (2007) 6 The Diplomat 68-71;
32. Gregory R. Copley, Andrew Pickford, Barry Patterson & Robert Vurens van Es Australia 2050: An Examination of Australia's Condition, Outlook, and Options for the First Half of the 21st Century (Future Directions International, Sid Harta, Glen Waverly: 2007).
33. US Department of State National Claims to Maritime Jurisdictions: Limits in the Seas (No 36, 8th Revision, Washington DC: 2000).
34. Maritime Legislation Amendment Act of 1994, No. 20 1994 (Aust).
35. Australian Government United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the Outer Limits of Australia's Continental Shelf Extending Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Territorial Sea Baseline AUS-DOC-ES and accompanying Note 89/2004 from the Australian Mission to the United Nations (15 November 2004).
36. United States Note POL 10-04 (3 December 2004);
37. Russian Federation Note 739/n (9 December 2004);
38. Japan Note SC/o5/039 (19 January 2005);
39. The Netherlands Note NYV/2005/690 (31 March 2005);
40. Germany Note 88/2005 (5 April 2005);
41. and India Note NY/PM/443/1/98 (5 July 2005).
42. Japan Note SC/o5/039 (19 January 2005).
43. New Zealand New Zealand Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf pursuant to Article 76 (8) on the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea
44. and accompanying Note NZ-CLCS-TPN-02 from the New Zealand Permanent Mission to the United Nations (19 April 2006).
45. Japan Note SC/06/459 (28 June 2006).
46. Although DFAT formally leads the Australian delegation to ATCMs, this is clearly pro forma, and even this is absent in relation to CCAMLR.