Antarktis-bibliografi er en database over den norske Antarktis-litteraturen.
Hensikten med bibliografien er å synliggjøre norsk antarktisforskning og annen virksomhet/historie i det ekstreme sør. Bibliografien er ikke komplett, spesielt ikke for nyere forskning, men den blir oppdatert.
Norsk er her definert som minst én norsk forfatter, publikasjonssted Norge eller publikasjon som har utspring i norsk forskningsprosjekt.
Antarktis er her definert som alt sør for 60 grader. I tillegg har vi tatt med Bouvetøya.
Det er ingen avgrensing på språk (men det meste av innholdet er på norsk eller engelsk). Eldre norske antarktispublikasjoner (den eldste er fra 1894) er dominert av kvalfangst og ekspedisjoner. I nyere tid er det den internasjonale polarforskninga som dominerer. Bibliografien er tverrfaglig; den dekker både naturvitenskapene, politikk, historie osv. Skjønnlitteratur er også inkludert, men ikke avisartikler eller upublisert materiale.
Til høyre finner du en «HELP-knapp» for informasjon om søkemulighetene i databasen. Mange referanser har lett synlige lenker til fulltekstversjon av det aktuelle dokumentet. For de fleste tidsskriftartiklene er det også lagt inn sammendrag.
Bibliografien er produsert ved Norsk Polarinstitutts bibliotek.
Your search
Results 5 resources
-
Global pressure over Antarctic resources will mount in the course of the coming decades. Three factors are likely to motivate states to claim jurisdictional rights or rights to natural resources in Antarctica: climate change, dwindling natural resources in the rest of the world, and the fact that – by virtue of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty – the question of sovereignty remains unresolved. It is high time to think about the moral dimensions that should shape Antarctic claims in the future. Is there any state or group of states more entitled than others to make such claims? What does sound management of natural resources require? How should environmental concerns factor into decisions about jurisdictional control and appropriation of natural resources? With these broad questions in the background, in this article I examine four principles of justice that figure prominently in current theories of territorial rights and rights over natural resources in political philosophy: connection, capacity, fair distribution, and need. I show how these principles have been used by states, alone or in tandem, to justify claims to jurisdiction and claims to natural resources in Antarctica. After pointing to their main strengths and weaknesses, I suggest that they may be necessary, but insufficient to build a just framework for jurisdiction and appropriation of resources in the White Continent.
-
By virtue of the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, the territorial claims to Antarctica of seven of the original signatories were held in abeyance or “frozen.” Considered by many as an exemplar of international law, the Antarctic Treaty System has come to be increasingly questioned, however, in a very much changed global scenario that presents new challenges to the governance of the White Continent. In this context, it is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of the moral weight of those initial claims, which stand (despite being frozen) as a cornerstone of the treaty. The aim of this article is to offer an appraisal of such claims, which may be divided into two main kinds: those grounded on some relevant link to the territory, and those grounded on official documents and geographical doctrines. After pointing to the limitations and challenges that they face, I conclude with some remarks about how this assessment ought to serve as a starting point to rethink the territorial status of Antarctica.
-
There are at least four ways in which Antarctic colonialism was white: it was paradigmatically performed by white men; it consisted in the taking of vast, white expanses of land; it was carried out with a carte blanche (literally, “blank card”) attitude; and it was presented to the world as a white, innocent adventure. While the first, racial whiteness has been amply problematised, I suggest that the last three illuminate yet other moral wrongs of the Antarctic colonial project. Moreover, they might be constitutive of a larger class of “white” colonialisms beyond the White Continent.
-
Signed in 1959, the Antarctic Treaty is usually hailed as an example of what states can achieve when they leave aside their interests and truly collaborate. It was over 30?years ago, however, that the last significant legal instrument of the Antarctic Treaty System (namely, the Protocol on Environmental Protection) was signed. Since then, no new legal instruments have been drafted, despite a number of growing internal and external challenges. In this special issue, an interdisciplinary group of scholars examine some of these challenges and evaluate whether the system is well prepared to tackle them. Their point of agreement is that, if not severely ill, the system's chronic ailments?particularly laggardness?must be addressed if it is to respond satisfactorily to rapid social, political, environmental and economic changes on a global scale.
Explore
Topic
- Antarktis (5)
- Antarktistraktaten (2)
- historie (2)
- internasjonal politikk (1)
- jus (2)
- miljøvern (1)
- polarområdene (1)
- politikk (4)
- ressurser (2)
- rettsfilosofi (1)
- samfunnsfag (1)
Resource type
- Book Section (1)
- Journal Article (4)