Talk:Argentine Antarctica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography.

If you would like to participate, you can improve Argentine Antarctica, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Antarctica
Antarctica Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Antarctica, which collaborates on articles related to Antarctica. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] References please

Two problems I see:

Argentines form more of Antarctica's population than nationals of any other country.

and Demographics of Antarctica shows argentina had 302 and USA had 1378 in 1/99. This doesn't appear to jive with the above.

In 1991 there were 142 permanent residents including 19 underages.

what exactly is an "underage"? Is that <16, <18, or <21 years old? Or some other age? Also Antarctica#Population says Although Antarctica has no permanent residents... which also doesn't jive with the above. Cburnett 03:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ant doesn't really have a population, cos there are no perm residents. There is perhaps some politicking here. Some nations have brought in kids, etc, in an effort to boost territorial claims William M. Connolley 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Argentina has occupated Antarctica for more than a century, it is logical that there have been sent loads more people than other countries. Underage means <18, that is the offspring of researches, who stay at least 2 years in that continent. At least 2 years seems a bit permanent to me. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine Antarctica Has a Capital?

I am not aware that a capital has ever been designated for an Antarctic territory, yet according to this entry, Esperanza Base is the capital of Argentine Antarctica. According to http://www.statoids.com/uar.html, the Argentine province "Tierra del Fuego includes the Argentine section of the island of Tierra del Fuego, as well as several unrecognized claims of Argentina." If any capital would be designated for Argentine Antarctica, it should be Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. If there are no objections, I will make the change. --Mike Beidler 12:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Argentine Antarctica is a department of the province, then its capital can't be the province's capital. Departments have their own capital (or head town).
I'm not sure about this, but I believe it the capital would be Marambio Base ("the head of the Argentine bases in Antarctica"). Mariano(t/c) 07:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Just realized the article places the capital at Esperanza Base. Now I really don't know. Mariano(t/c) 07:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The capital city is Ushuaia, isn't it? Mxcatania 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's start again. Tierra del Fuego is a province. Its capital is Ushuaia. Inside the Tierra del fuego province there are 4 departments:

  1. Ushuaia Department, who's capital is also Ushuaia.
  2. Río Grande Department, who's capital is Río Grande.
  3. Antártida Argentina, who's capital cannot be Ushuaia because it is geographically not there.
  4. Islas del Atlántico Sur Department, who's capital whould probably be Puerto Argentino.

No, back to the question, what is the capital of Argentine Antarctica: Since its a Department of the province, it should have a capital that lays in it. The most important Argentine bases there are Marambio and Esperanza, so probably one of them is the correct one. Since Esperanza is currently tagged as its capital, I would live it like that until new evidence is brought.

Mariano(t/c) 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to find. Since I'm not sure about the status of a Base (whether a Base is considered a town or not), I cannot say that there is a capital city in Argentine Antarctica. I'll be working on it. Mxcatania 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in antarctic articles?

In need some help by anyone who reads this. But it would seem to me that there is a bias between the British Antarctic Territory article and this one. This is a bias I have noted well in other encyclopedias as well. And I know this might be considered by some as 'splitting hairs', but I think it is a valid observation. The British article states that:

"...British Antarctic Territory is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, situated in Antarctica from the South Pole to 60° S latitude between longitudes 20° W and 80° W. The Territory was formed on March 3, 1962, although the UK first claimed this portion of the Antarctic in 1908. Prior to 1962, the Territory was part of the Falkland Islands Dependency. Territorial claims are generally not recognised by those countries not making their own claim..."

In the Argentine article it says:

"...Argentine Antarctica (Spanish: Antártida Argentina) is a sector of Antarctica which Argentina considers part of its National Territory. The Argentine Antarctic region, consisting of the Antarctic Peninsula and a triangular section extending to the South Pole, is delimited by the meridians 25° West and 74° West and the parallel 60° South latitude. Administratively, Argentine Antarctica is a department of the province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands. The provincial authorities reside in Ushuaia and the Governor annually designates his delegate for the Antarctica region, which thus represents the civil power of the zone. There are overlapping claims on this territory by Chile and the UK, so the "civil power" of any of the administrators extends no further than that nation's own bases..."

This looks like these two segments are massaging a point of view. Massaging is the correct word, because while it is not an overt statement, it certainly can be construed as the following: In the British article, the sentence clearly says "IS AN OVERSEAS TERRITORY... of the United Kingdom"... Now to me, and more so probably to uninformed or casual subject readers, this sounds like a definite affirmative statement of posession and control. The UK has no more of an official control to this region than do Argentina, or Chile.

On the other hand, the Argentine article says "a sector of Antarctica which Argentina CONSIDERS... part of its National Territory". This sound like it questions the validity of the 'claim' of territorial claim in itself (not to confuse this with the 'official validity of posession'), whereas in the UK and Chilean articles the 'claim' itself by the countries is not disputed, but rather the international validity.

I submit that this issue should be adressed. Thank you very much for your time. The dugout 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


I think that the statement "is an overseas territory of the UK" refers to the fact that under UK law, it is legally a "British Overseas Territory". Whether this UK law is recognised by other sovereign states is a different question entirely. It is arguable though that this does not stop it from being a British Overseas Territory.

I think that the consequences would be that under UK law, acts in a BOT are subject to the UK law which applies to that territory, whether or not it may also be subject to laws of other states. This may be a perculiarity of UK law but the UK parliament is not constitutionally restricted by territoriality - the example I was given previously was that, thererotically anyway, even if it has no force, the UK parliament can legislate, making it illegal to walk down a street in Paris. Whilst it has no jurisdiction there, the law would be valid in the UK.

As what is or is not a BOT is down to the UK parliament/Orders in Council, the territory IS a BOT and this is therefore undisputable. The question is whether this means anything to anyone esle

[edit] Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina

I've filed a requested move of the article Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province (the province that, according to Argentina, Argentine Antarctica belongs to) and thought people here might be interested in taking part. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)