Talk:Territorial claims in Antarctica

Argentine Antarctica

The Argentine antarctica was founded in 1904 by José María Sobral. The subdivision, the department of 'Antártida Argentina e Islas del Atlántico Sur' was founded several years later. It's a mistake say that Argentine Antarctica was founded the same year than the subdivision. Argentina's settlement in Antarctica was the first one founded in 1904 and today still exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.24.128 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Scottish people mapped and planted the first base in the area, hence South Orkney, and South Shetland Islands. the base building was sold to Argentines on the basis that they carry out scientific research there. At this time, none of them (or any other nation) made any kind of territorial claims in Antarctica. Argentina made their claim in 1942, and the United Kingdom in 1908.

No country has any settlements in Antarctica, there's no permanent population or community. Just research bases. 92.40.27.72 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No country has any settlements in Antarctica is incorrect. See Villa las Estrellas and Esperanza Base. Largoplazo (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the status of those Chilean and Argentine population centres as actual settlements is questionable. Besides scientific research, there is no purpose to them other than to promote territorial claims. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Besides their primary purpose, they have no purpose except their secondary purpose? I don't see how that disqualifies a place in which people have settled from being a settlement. How many purposes do there have to be? Five? Ten? Which purposes qualify and which ones don't? Who says there has to have been a specific purpose at all? A settlement is a settlement even if the settlers were wanderers who came upon a place they found suitable and simply decided to settle there, possibly full-time, possible using it as a base around which most of them continued their wandering.

The only purpose of Alcoa, Tennessee, was the smelting of aluminum, but it's still a settlement. What were the purposes behind Roanoke Colony, Jamestown, Virginia, and St. Augustine, Florida? To establish territorial claims, I believe. Largoplazo (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Norway

Norway has a very large territorial claim in Antarctica despite not having any overseas territories anywhere near Antartica. On what basis was their claim in Antartica accepted? Pass a Method talk 08:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is only accepted by the U.K., France, Australia, and New Zealand, who all mutually recognise claims. Basically it was first in, staked its area, then the [claims to the] Antarctic territory froze, leaving it in control. It did have a great advantage in exploration due to its people knowing how to survive the weather.

Norway does have Bouvet Island, which lies outside treaty boundaries, in the Southern Ocean, too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be obvious how and why Norway has a claim to a slice of Antarctica. In 1911, Roald Amundsen of Norway and his men established a base on the coast of Antarctica, and from there Amundsen and about five others marched and used dogsleds all the way to the South Pole and back via the huge Axel Heiberg Glacier, returning in 1912. THAT is a great way to establish a claim to territory -- to go there. Likewise Lewis and Clark of the United States established the American claim to Idaho, Washington State, Oregon], and part of Wyoming by forming an expedition and then going their by boat and on foot, over the Continental Divide. Likewise, Britons, including Ernest Shackleton and Robert Falcon Scott established claims to parts of Antarctica by marching across it by various routes during 1908-12, including all the way to the South Pole in 1912. This is not to say that these claims are unalienable ones, but they do exist. Likewise, other Britons, such as Charles Sturt and John McDouall Stuart established claims to large regions of Australia by leading expeditions to Central and Northern Australia. 24.156.78.205 (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian Claims

On 13 May 1927, Norway sent a letter to the UK claiming all the land south of 89°S, and under 85°S between 120W and 175W, most of it being then part of the 1923 British claimed Ross Dependency. As I found those information on primary sources (the UK National Archives) I won't add it, but maybe it's somewhere in some book? Just to remember that the French were not the first European country to contest UK great project of possessing all of Antarctica. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encolpe (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The letter is a primary source, but stating its existence is not interpretive so this should be fine within Wikipedia policy; republication by UK National Archives should help to establish its authenticity, i.e. the Archives acting as a secondary source in that respect. Please add if you can cite an Archives reference in such a way that the details of the letter could (at least in principle) be checked against the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.39.94 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing introduction

It is said that the Antarctic Treaty defers or suspends these claims. However, Article IV § 2 states, "No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force", hence neither deferring nor suspending existing claims.

If claims cannot be asserted nor denied, in what sense are they *not* suspended? Would "frozen" be a better word? Suggest this would be a more informative alternative, based on my understanding:

These claims have been effectively frozen by the Antarctic Treaty. Signatories continue to claim but do not exercise full sovereignty over their territories: each territory's laws are not applied to foreign nationals or bases operating in its borders. Moreover, signatories cannot try to enforce their claims, make any new claims or deny other signatories' claims: Article IV § 2 states, "No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force."

I'm not a lawyer so I realise some of this wording may be inaccurate, but it's an attempt to say what the treaty DOES say, not what it doesn't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8a0:feef:3301:65e6:e9a:1212:7f94 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)‎

The Treaty states that no new or enlarged claim may be asserted, and that no new acts or activities constitute a basis for asserting etc. a claim. It does not prohibit the assertion or denial of prior claims on prior basis, nor the "exercise of full sovereignty": for example it does not immunise foreign nationals generally from claimants' jurisdiction: only designated observers and exchanged scientists (and their staff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.39.94 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

British claims north of 60th parallel

The article does not explain what happened to the British claims N of 60S (up to 58S, W of 50W, and up to 50S, E of 50W) that are mentioned in the section "British claims"; these are not covered by the Antarctic Treaty, which applies only S of 60S. A distinction should perhaps be made on the sectoral maps between the claims (which predate the Treaty and were deliberately untouched by it) and the Treaty area (which extends from the pole only to 60S).

Furthermore, the British claims as quoted and the Treaty apply only to land and ice shelf, and there is an implication that nothing unusual pertains to the high seas, even within the sectoral area. This is not easily seen on the maps, some of which make the extent of the Norwegian claim look very different from the others, which as drawn appear to include the high seas too, whereas in fact the usual 12nm limit may apply in all sectors and the Norwegian claim may differ only by (perhaps) excluding offshore islands (if any; but note that Bouvet Island, which is north of 60S in the same sector, is a Norwegian dependency). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.39.94 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

One way to address both of the above issues would be to find a detailed map and see if there are any islands not claimed by Britain, Norway, etc. within the corresponding sectors, including the areas N of 60S mentioned above in the British case. Perhaps they are all now part of either the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands or the Falkland Islands territories. It is not obvious because the borders of these seem to be typically drawn around land only, not defined to encompass all land within some outer (e.g. sectoral) boundaries.

Cf. § Norwegian claim above

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Leo Amery 1917.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Confusing map

The initial map, which blends together overlapping colors, is quite confusing. The style of the second map, where competing claims are shown as stripes, is much clearer. Jpatokal (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Marie Bird Land Claim

On the wikipage it is stated and illustrated that Marie Bird Land is "unclaimed". I find this to be quite misleading however since an individual, Felix Kjellberg, has in fact claimed this piece of land. Moreover, you may argue that his claim is currently unrecognised by nations. But this however should not deduce from the credibility of his claim, as other claims of land in this Antarctica are also not fully recognised. If we were to consider that argument, then the same scrutiny must be applied to other claims too, which will effectively invalidate them also.

--signed Owen. B Owen Brooks (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No individual person can claim this land. Kjellberg even acknowleges this at the specific video where he initially claimed this land. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This "claim" seems to me prima facie to fall below the standard required by WP:NOTABILITY (and plausibly WP:VERIFIABILITY too). I could "claim" based on my own whim that the land that Brazil currently controls is illegitimately occupied by the Brazilian state and actually the Free Republic of Archonistan is the sole legitimate successor state of the Portuguese Empire in South America, but it such trivia are not exactly worthy of recording in WP. To do so is arguably even to violate WP:NPOV as it is giving undue weight to someone's personal eccentricity, by mentioning it in the same context as either de facto or de jure claims over land by at-least-plausible states (which in any case have no legal basis on this continent). Archon 2488 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flagge Reichskolonialbund2.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

missing: orthographic projection SVG

like other continents have, in this same pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_(orthographic_projection).svg 177.86.22.177 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Iran claim

A sourced addition was added today to the lead. After checking,the source came from a Fox news article. Only a handful of other news outlets report it, none mainstream. This claim was made by a military commander who is reported as saying six months ago: "We have property rights in the South Pole. We have plan to raise our flag there and carry out military and scientific work,..." This is not a territorial claim, so the source has been misinterpreted. The sources quickly move on to discuss the $6b of Iranian funds held by the USA and the current Hamas-Israel dispute, which appears to be the point of the articles, not Antarctica. This entire story is typical tabloid news that doesn't deserve to be put in wikipedia so I have removed it. Please remember, even based on this source, Iran does not make a claim to any part of Antarctica. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

A slightly more detailed account of what happened has just been added with another source that is the same as the others, low quality. It doesn't help that the English isn't good. "Iran's supposed property rights in the South Pole have been scrutinised by critics. Not only does the potential military base imagery breach the firmly held Antarctic Treaty, but it also raises international security concerns." Other than that it is the same - moving on to the $6bn funds and their use. Please use this talk page and don't add further to the article. This is the Youtube link on the latest Hindustani Times citation. [1] These weak sources are reporting this interview, making the citations primary anyway. See the interview - it's nonsense from a highly questionable govt/military source anyway.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ecuadorian Claim

Why is Ecuador’s claim not regarded with the same status as the seven generally accepted claimant parties? DougSaved625 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It was apparently a legislative action, not taken up by the Ecuadorian government [2]. CMD (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I believe there may be an edit required to the page in that case however I’ll do some further research to confirm before doing anything. DougSaved625 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)