No-Man’s-Land

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 838, 5 December 1929, Page 8

No-Man’s-Land

POLAR CLAIMS ARE FANCIFUL

UNLESS permanent occupation can be established in Antarctica, the Polar South, according to the principles of international law, is likely to remain NoAlan’s-Land.

Mr-. Julius Hogben, solicitor of Auckland and lecturer upon international law, here outlines a few of the salient points of the Antarctic dispute, and describes as fanciful the claims of both Britain and the United States of America.

Two clays ago it was explained in this column that if the parties in the international dispute over Antarctica pursued their claims, almost every nation upon earth would have the right to a voice, because almost every nation, including Russia and Japan, has at one time or another sent expeditions to the frozen South. Already Norway, through one of its prominent scientists, has begun to ask pertinent questions about Amundsen’s pioneer visit to the South Pole. In the early days of geographical exploration it was held that the discovery of previously unknown land gave absolute title to it. That is not so today. The annexation of unoccupied country gives a title which is incomplete, and which may be completed only by continued possession. The allocation of the suzerainty of Spitzbergen and Bear Island, in the Arctic Circle, in a case in point. Spitzbergen, it will be recalled, was generally regarded as No-Man’s-Land, and the difficulty of proving any title under international law led to several unsuccessful attempts by the nations affected to settle it. The ultimate result was the signing of a treaty in February, 1920, by nine States, ceding sovereignty to Norway. OCCUPATION NECESSARY Mere discovery of land does not convey ownership. This question was raised when Peary discovered the North Pole in 1909, and again when Amundsen placed the Norwegian flag at the South Pale two years later. As Mr. Julius Hogben now points out, one of the greatest authorities in the "world upon international law, W. E. Hall, said at that time: • “As the regions of both the North and South Poles are incapable of permanent settlement, they do not appear to be territory susceptible of acquisition by occupation.” In a general way, the position is Made ev.en clearer by another authority. the late Professor Pitt Cobbett, Professor of International Law at the Sydney University, who put it in this way:— (1) There must be some formal act of appropriation on behalf of the occupying State, either done by its authority or subsequently adopted by it, and either publicly notified or done under the circumstances reasonably sufficient to bring it under the notice of other States.

(2) Such act of appropriation must subsequently be followed by actual settlement and by the establishment of an effective control by the occupant over the area in question. “It is clear that up to the present time discoverers in the Antarctic have been but sporadic occupiers of the territory,” Mr. Hogben says in commenting upon these points. *‘lt is true that Commander Byrd and his predecessors have established the fact that it is possible to remain in the polar regions for the greater part of the year, but if this occupation were to form the basis of a claim for ownership, it would have to be permanent; and moreover the occupiers would have to have effective control of the area occupied. “At the most, the claims of Britain, the Uniited States and any other nation interested can be called fanciful. The dispute is purely a sentimental one, and acording to international Jaw, England has no more right to claim these lands because of past associations than America has because Byrd flew over them. “It seems to me that these regions are incapable of acquisition as part of the territory of any state. If there are valuable mineral deposits to be found there, who is prepared to go down and work them?” FUTILE DISPUTE History contains adequate proof that discovery is not necessarily a guarantee of ownership. New Zealand was discovered by Abel Tasman in the 17th century. But it is not a Dutch Colony. Centuries ago, of course, nations w-rangled over the possessions of certain seas, as well as lands, and none more fiercely than Great Britain. But international law has changed with the changing times, and it seems that in order to convince the disputants to ownership of Antarctica of the futility of their claims, it is necessary to quote the reply which King Francis I of France, sent to Charles V. of Spain when, in the 17ih century, Spain and Portugal claimed sovreignty of the whole of middle and South America: “By what right do you and the King of Portugal undertake to monopolise the earth?” Francis of France asked. ‘“Has Father Adam made you his sole heirs, and if so where is a copy of the will?”