Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1913. WHO OWNS THE POLES?

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 11591, 13 February 1913, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1913. WHO OWNS THE POLES?

A friend with an enquiring turn of mind asked us yesterday to tell him who owns the Poles. The question is not perhaps on.c of immediate practical importance. We susepect that quite a considerable time will elapse before emigrants will feel tempted to visit those regions with a view to settlement, or even before Messrs Thomas Cook and Sons will consider their attractions from the point of view of the summer tourist sighing for some new place to go to. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that at some future time, when man has further increased his mastery over nature with the advance of scientific knowledge, the question of the ownership of the Arctic and Antarctic regions might become one of considerable importance, especially in the event of the definite discovery there of Valuable mineral deposits capable of being profitably worked. The question, therefore, is one of some little interest, specially just now when the public mind is occupied with sad thoughts of polar exploration.

We are afraid that the only answer which can bo given to our friend's question at present is that nobody owns the poles. He reminded us that when Commander Peary reached the North Polo in 1909 he planted the American flag there; that when Captain Amundsen reached the South Pole in December, 1911, he raised the Norwegian flag, and that when, some five weeks later, poor Captain Scott also stood at the bottom of the earth he certainly unfurled the Union Jack. But, whatever value these interesting incidents may possess from tho sentimental and patriotic point of view, it does not appear

that they possess any decisive significance as far as political ownership goes. The question put to us has to be decided in the light of the recognised rules with regard to the occupation of.territory hitherto uninhabited laid down in that portion of international law which deals with the territorial property of civilised states. Nor- are we satisfied that those rules apply equally to the North and South Poles. At the south it is definitely known that an Antarctic Continent exists, and therefore the rules relating to the annexation of territory would no doubt be applicable there. But there is no evidence of the existence of an analagous Arctic continent. It is a recognised rule of international law that the open ocean cannot be appropriated, and therefore the aforementioned rules, presently to be described, could not be made to apply to the Arctic regions unless it be granted that the fixity and permanence of ice there assimilates the spot to land, and that is a disputable doctrine.

Now the opinions ,of international jurists as to what constitutes a valid title to newly acquired territory have varied very considerably at • different times. At one time, indeed, mere dis. covery was.• considered .to constitute a good title to the land discovered, but this doctrine did not survive for long. "In the early days-of European exploration," says the publicist Hall, "it was held, or at least every state maintained with respect to territories discovered by itself, that the discovery of previously unknown land conferred an absolute title to it upon tho State by whose agents the discovery was made. But it has now been long settled that the bare fact of discovery is an insufficient ground of proprietary right. It is only so far useful that it gives additional value to acts in themselves doubtful or inadequate." The position, in fact, is that there must be acts done subsequent to discovery in order to establish a proprietary title, and then discovery will lend additional weight to them. What are those subsequent acts? It appears that mere formal annexation must be followed within a reasonable time by occupation, that is by something in the nature of permanent, if intermittent, settlement, and the exercise of an effective sovereignty over the region occupied. It also appears that the act of annexation must be "an undoubted act of the central government speaking on behalf of the state" (Lawrence), and it is generally necessary that other States should, be formally notified of the annexation. We have no space to go more fully into the international law of occupation, many of the : details of which are still vexed questions amongst jurists. But we have said enough to clear up the question as it affects the polar regions. It is quite plain that the mere fact of discovery, unaccompanied by actual appropriation or settlement, will not now confer any title to territory. Although partly subsidised by Governments, none of the expeditions to the poles have been State expeditions, and none of them set out with the object of annexing territory. They were private and purely scientific expeditions, and therefore we must conclude that so far no state has asserted any proprietary title to the poles or performed any of the acts which would invest such a; claim with legal authority.