A R C T I C

Physical Characteristics

Physical Characteristics

AN T A R C T I C A

AR C T I C

Coastal States

Legal Statues

Applicable LegalPrinciples

Sovereignty

Key Historical

Legal Comparison

Applicable Standards

Conclusion

Reference

• Effective occupation: Sovereignty can only be claimed if there is real presence and continuous administration.
• Continuity: the Artic would be a natural extension of State´s continent.
• Contiguity: belonging to the nearest State.

Both principles aren't fully recognized in international law.

1907 → Pascal Poirier (Canadian senator) proposes to divide the Arctic into triangular sectors from the North Pole.2007 → Russian expedition places flag on the seabed (Lomonosov Ridge, 4,200 m deep), claiming it was an extension of their continental shelf. Symbolic act, not legally valid.

Antarctic Treaty (1959, Washington):Freezes territorial claims. Exclusively peaceful use.Free scientific research. Prohibits military activity.Madrid Protocol (1991): Protects the environment. Prohibits exploitation of mineral resources. Recognized as a natural reserve and common heritage of humanity.

• No State can exercise full sovereignty.
• Several countries have frozen historical claims (Chile, Argentina, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, France).
• Considered an internationalized zone, although imperfectly, as the treaty does not nullify previous claims.

• Marqués Rueda, E. G. (2009). El estatus jurídico del Ártico y la Antártida: un tema pendiente en la agenda jurídico-política de las relaciones internacionales contemporáneas. Revista de Relaciones Internacionales de la UNAM, (103), 73–112. Recuperado de http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rri/article/viewFile/21318/20118
• Naciones Unidas. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Montego Bay. Naciones Unidas. Recuperado de https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
• Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty System. (1959). The Antarctic Treaty. Recuperado de https://documents.ats.aq/keydocs/vol_1/vol1_2_AT_Antarctic_Treaty_e.pdf-
• Secretarit of the Antarctic Treaty System. (1991). Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol). Recuperado de https://documents.ats.aq/recatt/att006_e.pdf

Arctic

• There is no specific treaty.
• Claims are based on UNCLOS.
• Disputes mainly over natural resources.

Antarctic

• Regulated by the Antarctic Treaty (1959).
• Common heritage of mankind.
• Focused on peace, science, and environmental protection.

Conclusion

The analysis of the Arctic and Antarctica shows that, although both areas share extreme conditions that hinder human presence, their legal treatment has been different. While the Arctic lacks a specific treaty and is governed by principles of maritime law and claims from coastal states, Antarctica is under a more defined international regime that prioritizes scientific research and environmental protection. This difference reflects not only the geographic particularities of each region but also the strategic and economic interest they awaken in the international community.