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 3 resources
-
In this article, we investigate three arguments for Rights of Antarctica (RoA), understood as recognising the whole continent as a rights-holder with legal standing. For this, we draw inspiration from the Antarctica Declaration, a text developed by an interdisciplinary and international group of scholars and activists. We scrutinise three justifications that could potentially be used in support of RoA. First, we investigate whether arguments for Rights of Nature (RoN) elsewhere can support RoA. RoN has been accepted in several domestic legislations. Unfortunately, we discover important disanalogies between RoA and RoN, defeating the purpose of justifying RoA with reference to RoN. Second, we scrutinise potential arguments that focus on giving rights to specific Antarctic ecoregions or places. However, such arguments would only cover parts of the continent, thus going against the holistic approach of RoA, and they would require using a broader understanding of ?attachments? as grounds for justifying rights for parts of Antarctica. In contrast, we construct an argument for accepting RoA based on four components: (1) Antarctica?s intrinsic value, (2) wider forms of human attachments, (3) Antarctica?s substantial role as a global systemic resource, and (4) the fact that Antarctica is under recurrent and substantial threats. While none of these are individually sufficient for recognising RoA, they can jointly make RoA appropriate. We conclude that it remains an open question whether international law or, more specifically, the Antarctic Treaty, would be open to such conceptual and normative innovation, adopting a new paradigm in our treatment of the nonhuman natural world. At the same time, we hope to kickstart a discussion of what RoA would require and how it should relate more generally to RoN discourses.
-
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.
Explore
Topic
- jus
- Antarktis (3)
- Antarktistraktaten (1)
- Antarktistraktaten 1959 (1)
- ekspedisjoner (1)
- historie (1)
- hvalfangst (1)
- internasjonal (1)
- Norge (1)
- politikk (2)
- ressurser (1)
Resource type
- Journal Article (3)