Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T17:53:46.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Common Heritage of Mankind and the Antarctic Treaty System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Zou Keyuan
Get access

Extract

After the successful conclusion of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, a number of developing countries outside the Antarctic Treaty System began to pay increasingly close attention to Antarctica. It was said that there were abundant valuable resources there; the Antarctic Treaty Consultative parties (ATCPs) began to negotiate an Antarctic minerals regime. They suggested that the concept of the common heritage of mankind (CHM), applicable to the international sea-bed area, be expanded to apply to Antarctica, particularly to its resources. These countries raised the curtain on debating the question of Antarctica at the UN forum, and made the following question a subject for discussion by the international community: does the concept of CHM apply to Antarctica, and, if so, to what extent? This question has represented one of the strongest external challenges to the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS); indeed, it has been the central focus in the development of interest in the Antarctic minerals regime.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , August 1991 , pp. 173 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

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. See A Quiet Revolution: the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Department of Public Information (1984) at p. 41Google Scholar.

2. See UN Doc. A/6695 (1967).

3. See Brownlie, L, ed., Basic Documents in International Law, 2nd edn. (1972) pp. 113–114Google Scholar.

4. Kewenig, W. A., ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind—A Political Slogan or a Key Concept of International Law’, 24 Law and State (1981) at p. 21Google Scholar. See also White, M. V., ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind: An Assessment’, 14 Case W. Res. JIL (1982) no. 3, at p. 509Google Scholar ; Kiss, A., ‘Lanotion de patrimoine commun de l'humanité’, Hague Recueil (1982-II) at p. 99Google Scholar.

5. Gorove, S., ‘The Concept of Common Heritage of Mankind: A Political, Moral or Legal Obligation?’, 9 San Diego LR (1972) at p. 402Google Scholar ; see also Joyner, C., ‘Legal Implications of the Concept of Common Heritage of Mankind’, 35 ICLQ (1986) at p. 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. See Francioni, F., ‘Antarctica and the Common Heritage of Mankind’, in Francioni, F. and Scovazzi, T., eds., International Law for Antarctica (1987) at p. 107Google Scholar.

7. See Larschan, B. and Brennan, B., ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle in International Law’, 21 Columbia J. Trans. L. (1983) at p. 305Google Scholar ; Joyner, , loc. cit a 5, pp. 191–192Google Scholar. Joyner also pointed out that the contents of the common heritage of mankind also concerned the conduct of scientific research in the international space area and such research should benefit all peoples.

8. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edn. (1979) at p. 1174.

9. Larschan, and Brennan, , loc. cit. n. 7, pp. 317–318Google Scholar.

10. Black's Law Dictionary, op. cit. n. 8, at p. 1173.

11. See Larschan, and Brennan, , loc. cit. n. 7, at p.316Google Scholar.

12. See Weiss, E. D., ‘Conflicts Between Present and Future Generations over New Natural Resources’, in Dupuy, R.J., ed., The Settlement of Disputes on the New Natural Resources (1983) pp. 177–195Google Scholar.

13. See 10 ILM (1971) pp. 207–214, 219Google Scholar.

14. See Collected Materials on the Law of the Sea (in Chinese) (1974) at p. 191.

15. Tieya, Wang, ‘The Concept of Common Heritage of Mankind’, Chinese Yearbook of International Law (in Chinese) (1984) at p. 28Google Scholar.

16. See Oda, S., ‘International Law of the Resources of the Sea’, Hague Recueil (1969-II) at p. 464Google Scholar.

17. 9 ILM (1970) p. 806Google Scholar.

18. Cunningham, F. X., ‘The Common Heritage’, Foreign ServiceJ. (07–08 1981) at p. 13Google Scholar.

19. Francioni, , loc. cit. n. 6, at p. 114Google Scholar.

20. Ibid at p. 117.

21. Ian Brownlie once put it: ‘It is sometimes said that General Assembly resolutions “have no legislative effect”. In one sense this is correct: as such the resolutions do not make new law. However, if it is inferred that such resolutions can have no effect on the shaping of international law this is a capital error’. In ‘Legal Status of Natural Resources in International Law’, Hague Recueil (1979-I) at p. 260.

22. In fact, the Treaty of Outer Space of 1967 does contain some elements of the CHM concept, and its general principles such as seeking for the benefit of all mankind and the non-appropriation of the outer space by any State or person, are closely related to the concept of CHM.

23. Tieya, Wang, loc. cit. a 15, at p. 44Google Scholar.

24. Balch, T. W., ‘The Arctic and Antarctic Region and the Law of Nations’, 4 AJIL (1910) at p. 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Fauchille, P., Traité du droit international public, vol. 1 (1925) pp. 658–659Google Scholar.

26. Reeves, J. S., ‘George V Land’, 28 AJIL (1934) at p. 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. See Daniel, J., ‘Conflict of Sovereignties in the Antarctic’, 3 YWA (1949) at p. 271Google Scholar.

28. See Jenks, C. W., The Common Law of Mankind (1958) pp. 366–381Google Scholar: Bertram, G. C. L., Antarctica Today and Tomorrow (1958) pp. 24–27Google Scholar.

29. Jessup, P. C. and Taubenfeld, H. J., Controls for Outer Space and Antarctic Analogy (1959) at p. 180Google Scholar.

30. Kish, J., The Law of International Spaces (1973) at p. 76Google Scholar.

31. Hayton, R. D., ‘Polar Problems and International Law’, 52 AJIL (1958) at p. 746CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Soviet Union also put forward a similar proposal, see Toma, P. A., ‘Soviet Attitude Towards the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty in the Antarctic’, 50 AJIL (1956) pp.611–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Hanessian, J., ‘Antarctica:Current National Interests and Legal Realities’, 52 Proceedings Am. Soc. Int. L. (1958) at p. 163Google Scholar.

33. Puri, R., ‘Antarctica: Common Heritage of Mankind’, in Shanna, R. C., ed., Growing Focus on Antarctica (1986) at p. 268Google Scholar.

34. Puri, , loc. cit. n. 33, pp. 268–269Google Scholar.

35. UN Doc. A/30/PV 2380 (1975) pp. 13–15.

36. UN Doc. A/37/PV 10 (1982) pp. 17–20.

37. Record of UNCLOS III, A/CONF 62 PV 189, pp. 81–82; A/CONF 62 PV 192, at p. 12.

38. UN Doc. A/38/1325/15675, Economic Declaration, paras. 122–123.

39. UN Doc. A/C. 1/38/PV 46 (1983) at p. 13.

40. UN Doc. A/38/PV 97 (1983) pp. 30–31.

41. See Beck, P. J., ‘Antarctica: A Case for the UN?’, 40 World Today (1984) no. 4, at p. 171Google Scholar.

42. That is UN Doc. A/39/583 (1984).

43. Beck, P. J., ‘The United nations Study on Antarctica, 1984’, 22 Polar Record (1985) no. 140, at p. 501CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But S. Eilers suggested that the study had at least three shortcomings: (1) the report neglected to deal with the doubts concerning the legal validity of Antarctic territorial claims; (2) it avoided a serious discussion of the relationship between ATS and the emerging law of the sea; (3) it described inadequately the Consultative Status. See his article ‘Antarctica Adjourned? The UN Deliberations on Antarctica’, 19 Int. Law (1985) no. 4, pp. 1313–1316Google Scholar.

44. See Beck, P. J., ‘Antarctica at the United Nations, 1985: The End of Consensus?’, 23 Polar Record (1986) no. 143, pp. 159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. UN Doc. A/40/996 A-C (1985).

46. See Beck, P. J., ‘The United Nations and Antarctica 1986’, 23 Polar Record (1987) no. 147, pp. 683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘Another Sterile Annual Ritual? The United Nations and Antarctica 1987’, 24 Polar Record (1988) no. 150, pp. 207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. See Lagoni, R., ‘The United Nations and Antarctica’, 33 Law and State (1986) pp. 115–117Google Scholar.

48. UN Doc. A/42/427 (1987) at p. 275.

49. UN Doc. A/39/583, part II, Vol. 2 (1984) at p. 47.

50. Ibid. at p. 83.

51. Ibid. p. 46.

52. Ibid. at p. 135.

53. Ibid. at p. 111.

54. Ibid. at p. 35.

55. Supra n. 49, part II, Vol. 1, at p. 3.

56. See Greenpeace International, The Future of the Antarctic: Background for a Third UN Debate (1985) Appendix 8.

57. UN Doc. A/37/PV 18 (1982) at p. 17.

58. Berlin, M. J., ‘UN Members Seeking Role in Antarctic Treaty’, Washington Post (19 11 1987)Google Scholar.

59. See Zain-Azraai, , ‘Antarctica: The Claims of “Expertise” Versus “Interest”’, in Triggs, G. D., ed., The Antarctic Treaty Regime (1987) at p. 213Google Scholar.

60. Remarks by Gbeho, J. V., Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, 80 Proceedings Am. Soc. Int. L. (1986) at p. 281Google Scholar.

61. Ibid. pp. 285–286.

62. UN Doc. A/C. 1/38/PV 42 (1983) at p. 6.

63. See Rich, R., ‘A Minerals Regime for Antarctica’, 31 ICLQ (1982) pp. 713–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64. Lagoni, R., ‘Antarctica's Mineral Resources in International Law’, 23 Law and State (1981) pp. 99–100Google Scholar.

65. Chopra, S. K., ‘Antarctica in the United Nations: Rethinking the Problems and Prospects’, 80 Proceedings Am. Soc. Int. L. (1986) at p. 272Google Scholar.

66. The freedom of the high seas includes freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight, freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, freedom of fishing, and freedom of scientific research, but in my personal view, does not include the freedom to possess the international sea-bed area or to explore and exploit the resources thereof.

67. Joyner, C. C. and Theis, E. R., ‘The United States and Antarctica: Rethinking the Interplay of Law and Interests’, 20 Cornell ILJ (1987) at p. 97Google Scholar.

68. Statement by Ambassador Huang Jiahua on the Question of Antarctica in the First Committee of the 40th Session of the UN General Assembly (26 November 1985), Chinese Yearbook of International Law (in Chinese) (1986) p. 617.

69. Vicuña, F. Orrego, Antarctic Mineral Exploitation: The Emerging Legal Framework (1988) at p. 485Google Scholar.

70. Far the official views from Australia, Britain and New Zealand, see UN Doc. A/39/583, part II (1984).

71 . Remarks by Mansfield, W. R., 79 Proceedings Am. Soc. Int. L. (1985) at p. 61Google Scholar.

72. See UN Doc. A/39/583, part H, Vol. 1, at p. 90. Scholars from India also consider mat the highest priority far most Third World countries is development and for mem CHM is an exploitation rather than a conservation concept. See Thakur, R. and Gold, H., “The Antarctic Treaty Regime: Exclusive Preserve or Common Heritage?’, 32 Foreign Affairs Reports (New Delhi) (1983) nos. 11 - 12 at p. 185Google Scholar.

73. See Joyner, and Theis, , loc. cit. n. 67, pp. 97–101Google Scholar.

74. See UN Doc. A/C. 1/40/PV 50, at p. 32.

75. UN Doc. A/C. 1/39/PV 52, at p. 13.

76. UN Doc. A/C. 1/40/PV 55, at p. 66.

77. UNDoc. A/C. l/40/PV 50, at p. 31.

78. See UN Doc. A/C. l/41/PV 51, at p. 51.

79. A number of ATPs who voted in favour of the South African resolution made the point that they were doing so on political grounds and that their vote should not be seen as detracting from the force and value of the Antarctic Treaty. In 1986, Treaty Parties who had decided to vote for Resolution 88C stated in a note that their decision ‘should be seen as being without prejudice to then views on the merits of a consensus approach to Antarctica and on the successful functioning of the Antarctic Treaty. Treaty Parties are united in their determination to safeguard the effective functioning of the Antarctic Treaty system’. See Woolcott, R., ‘The Legitimacy of the United Nations: Challenge to the Antarctic Treaty’, 58 Australian Foreign Affairs Records (1987) no. 7, at p. 378Google Scholar.

80. The Agreement came into force on 11 July 1984 when mere were only five treaty parties: Austria, Chile, the Netherlands, the Philippines and Uruguay.

81. Kiss noted in 1985 that ‘the present outer space regime is in general thus very much like that of the high seas: it can be considered a res communis, but does not fulfil the criteria of the concept of the common heritage of mankind’. See Kiss, A., ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind: Utopia or Reality’, 40 Int. J. (1985) at p 430CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82. See Larschan, and Brennan, , loc. cit. n. 7, at p. 325Google Scholar.

83. Rajan, H. P., ‘India's Approach to the Antarctic Treaty System as a New Consultative Party’, in Wolfrum, R., ed., Antarctic Challenge II (1986) at p. 316Google Scholar.

84. Hongzeng, Zhang, ‘The Pioneer Investors's Regime and the Challenges to It’, Chinese Yearbook of International Law (in Chinese) (1987) pp. 315–316Google Scholar. In this respect, Mark Imber correctly pointed out that the principle of the common heritage of mankind and its translation into a practical commercial regime far the redistribution of revenues derived from the exploitation of the deep sea-bed would appear to have become stalled. See his article ‘International Institutions and the Common Heritage of Mankind: Sea, Space and the Polar Regions’, in Taylor, P. and Groom, A. J. R.,eds., International Institutions at Work (1988) at p. 161Google Scholar.

85. F.Orrego Vicuña considered that ‘so long as the Treaty Parties, as being the countries directly involved in Antarctica, do not accept an Antarctic regime which specifically incorporates the concept of the common heritage of mankind, this concept will not be established as a rule of international law in this context’. See op. cit. n. 69, at p. 485.

86. Kiss, noted that ‘the first elements of the concept of the commonheritage of mankind appeared in the Antarctic Treaty’;, loc. cit. n. 81, at p. 428Google Scholar.

87. Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 6th edn., Part III (1989) at p. 3303.

88. Ibid. pp. 3304–3305.

89. Francioni, , loc. cit n. 6, at p. 119Google Scholar.

90. ATS Handbook, op. cit n. 87, at p. 3311.

91. Parfit, M., ‘Nations are Debating the Future of the Antarctic's Frozen Assets’, 15 Smithsonian (1984) no. 8, at pp. 52 and 58Google Scholar. See also Shusterich, K. M., ‘The Antarctic Treaty System: History, Substance, and Speculation’, 39 Int. J. (1984) at p. 810CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92. See Rybakov, Y. M., ‘Juridical Nature of the 1959 Treaty System’, in the Polar Research Board's Antarctic Treaty System: An Assessment (1986) at p. 36Google Scholar; Moncayo, G. R., ‘L'Utilisation de l'Antarctique à des fins pacifiques’, in Francioni, and Scovazzi, , eds., op. cit. n. 6, pp. 166–167.Google Scholar

93. Francioni, , loc. cit. n. 6, at p. 125Google Scholar.

94. Ibid. at p. 123.

95. ATS Handbook, op. cit. n. 87, Part I, at D3.

96. See Pallone, F., ‘Resource Exploitation: The Threat to the Legal Regime of Antarctica’, 12 Int. Law (1978) at p. 558Google Scholar.

97. See Ronzitti, N., ‘The Regime of Mineral Resources in Antarctica’, in Fiancioni, and Scovazzi, , eds., op. cit. n. 6, p. 449Google Scholar; for example, the statement by Ambassador Bo Johnson Theutenberg at the Meeting on the Antarctic Mineral Resources, 26 February - 8 March 1985, in Karlqvist, A., ed., Sweden and Antarctica (1985) pp. 78–85Google Scholar.

98. See the remarks by Gbeho, , supra n. 60, at p. 281Google Scholar.

99. Negroponte, J. D., ‘TheSuccess of the Antarctic Treaty’, in The polar Regions, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Seminar of the Centre for Oceans Law and Policy of the University of Virginia (1987) at p. 117Google Scholar; see also Vicuña, Orrego, op. cit. n. 69, pp. 494–495Google Scholar.

100 Kiss, , loc. cit. n. 4, pp. 144–145Google Scholar. Kiss reiterated in 1985 that ‘although the term “common heritage” is not used, the characteristics of the Antarctic system, as it has been established by the relevant treaties and by the rules adopted inside the system, correspond to the criteria of this newly formulated concept’. See loc. cit. n. 81, at p. 429.

101 Cf., relevant provisions, especially Arts. 150–151 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

102 Chopra, , loc. cit. n. 65, at p. 275Google Scholar.