| dc.description.abstract | The jurisdictional approach followed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 was the outcome of a difficult compromise between countries favouring the principle of nationality and those supporting the principle of territoriality.2 Contrary to what might have been expected, the former principle was supported not only by countries that pertained to the category of non-claimants but also by important claimants such as the United Kingdom and Norway. It was in fact Britain that introduced the proposal for a jurisdictional system based on nationality,3 while Norway maintained ‘that any person in the Antarctic should be subject solely to the penal jurisdiction of the country of which he is a national’.4 France, Chile and Argentina led the position relying on the territorial principle and its close association with the exercise of sovereignty claimed by these countries.The jurisdictional approach followed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 was the outcome of a difficult compromise between countries favouring the principle of nationality and those supporting the principle of territoriality.2 Contrary to what might have been expected, the former principle was supported not only by countries that pertained to the category of non-claimants but also by important claimants such as the United Kingdom and Norway. It was in fact Britain that introduced the proposal for a jurisdictional system based on nationality,3 while Norway maintained ‘that any person in the Antarctic should be subject solely to the penal jurisdiction of the country of which he is a national’.4 France, Chile and Argentina led the position relying on the territorial principle and its close association with the exercise of sovereignty claimed by these countries.The jurisdictional approach followed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 was the outcome of a difficult compromise between countries favouring the principle of nationality and those supporting the principle of territoriality.2 Contrary to what might have been expected, the former principle was supported not only by countries that pertained to the category of non-claimants but also by important claimants such as the United Kingdom and Norway. It was in fact Britain that introduced the proposal for a jurisdictional system based on nationality,3 while Norway maintained ‘that any person in the Antarctic should be subject solely to the penal jurisdiction of the country of which he is a national’.4 France, Chile and Argentina led the position relying on the territorial principle and its close association with the exercise of sovereignty claimed by these countries.The jurisdictional approach followed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 was the outcome of a difficult compromise between countries favouring the principle of nationality and those supporting the principle of territoriality.2 Contrary to what might have been expected, the former principle was supported not only by countries that pertained to the category of non-claimants but also by important claimants such as the United Kingdom and Norway. It was in fact Britain that introduced the proposal for a jurisdictional system based on nationality,3 while Norway maintained ‘that any person in the Antarctic should be subject solely to the penal jurisdiction of the country of which he is a national’.4 France, Chile and Argentina led the position relying on the territorial principle and its close association with the exercise of sovereignty claimed by these countries.The jurisdictional approach followed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 was the outcome of a difficult compromise between countries favouring the principle of nationality and those supporting the principle of territoriality.2 Contrary to what might have been expected, the former principle was supported not only by countries that pertained to the category of non-claimants but also by important claimants such as the United Kingdom and Norway. It was in fact Britain that introduced the proposal for a jurisdictional system based on nationality,3 while Norway maintained ‘that any person in the Antarctic should be subject solely to the penal jurisdiction of the country of which he is a national’.4 France, Chile and Argentina led the position relying on the territorial principle and its close association with the exercise of sovereignty claimed by these countries.The jurisdictional approach followed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 was the outcome of a difficult compromise between countries favouring the principle of nationality and those supporting the principle of territoriality.2 Contrary to what might have been expected, the former principle was supported not only by countries that pertained to the category of non-claimants but also by important claimants such as the United Kingdom and Norway. It was in fact Britain that introduced the proposal for a jurisdictional system based on nationality,3 while Norway maintained ‘that any person in the Antarctic should be subject solely to the penal jurisdiction of the country of which he is a national’.4 France, Chile and Argentina led the position relying on the territorial principle and its close association with the exercise of sovereignty claimed by these countries.The jurisdictional approach followed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty1 was the outcome of a difficult compromise between countries favouring the principle of nationality and those supporting the principle of territoriality.2 Contrary to what might have been expected, the former principle was supported not only by countries that pertained to the category of non-claimants but also by important claimants such as the United Kingdom and Norway. It was in fact Britain that introduced the proposal for a jurisdictional system based on nationality,3 while Norway maintained ‘that any person in the Antarctic should be subject solely to the penal jurisdiction of the country of which he is a national’.4 France, Chile and Argentina led the position relying on the territorial principle and its close association with the exercise of sovereignty claimed by these countries. | |
