Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Essay on Argumentive PDF

6 Pages1398 Words98 Views
   

Added on  2021-09-22

Essay on Argumentive PDF

   Added on 2021-09-22

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
ARGUMENTIVE ESSAY
Argument given in essay
[DATE]
[COMPANY NAME]
[Company address]
Essay  on  Argumentive PDF_1
The main of this research paper is to prepare the argument on the behalf of appellant
(Australian Conservation foundation). After assessing all the details and case study on the
validation of the Antarctic treaty 1959, there are several Arguments are present on behalf of
the Appellant.
1. The Appellant who is Australian Conservation foundation argued that the treaty made by
them which is Antarctic treaty 1959 was completely invalid and according to the rule
established by the law. This act is invalid and does not comply with the all legal rule
formation case.
2. They argued that the treaty is formed on the terms and conditions of the Constitution which
states under article 7 about the activity which are prohibited under the Protocol on
Environment Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 19911.
The Article states as: Any activity relating to the mineral resources, other than scientific
research, shall be prohibited. It is done with a view to strengthen the economic and society at
large.
3. They argued that the OZ mining has been granted written authorisation by the minister to
conduct scientific and exploratory activity within the Australian Antarctic Territory under
Section of the Act2. This was the privileged given to the OZ mining for its activities.
4. They argued further that the New Zealand mining has received the similar authorisation
under the equivalent New Zealand legislation. This made the validity of the treaty authorised
act on the part of the appellant and this act is not valid under the law.
5. They argued that the treaty was designed to protect the continent from military activity,
promote scientific cooperation and suspend the question of sovereignty over the continent
which was prohibitory objective on the part of the appellant and was invalid under the act.
6. They further argued that the treaty was increasingly going successful and it led to series of
subsequent dealings with the matter relating to the Antarctic seals, living resources, marine
and environmental protection.
7. They argued that the sub section (1) include the activities which are included in the ‘scientific
and exploratory activity’ which includes:
i. Seismic testing
ii. Magnetic susceptibility testing
1 Donald Rothwell and Tim Stephens The international law of the sea (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016)2 Alan D Hemmings, et al "Nationalism in today’s Antarctic (2015) 7(1) " The Yearbook of Polar Law
Online 531-555
Essay  on  Argumentive PDF_2
iii. Conductivity Testing
iv. Directional core drilling3
The appellant concluded in August 2016 a bilateral treaty to jointly conduct preliminary
exploration of mineral deposits in the area of Australian Antarctic Territory known as George
V Land and the Ross Dependency know as Victoria Land which was claimed by New
Zealand. These areas were the rice deposits of crude oil4.
And they also conducted a feasibility study of the cost associated with the mineral extraction
and the similarly a detailed environmental impact assessment by the independent scientist.
These all tests were in accordance with the scientific test mentioned in sub section (1) of
section 11. It fulfils the conditions mentioned in Article 5 of the constitution as well which
states the explorative scientific test on the ‘seismic activity, magnetic susceptibility test and
conductivity within the area for the purposes of preliminary exploration.
In context with the given case, it is also analysed that on September 10 the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) issued a Resolution declaring the bilateral treaty between Australia
and New Zealand as being ‘in breach of each State’s obligations under Article 7 of the
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty’. This was done in support of
the argument and also shows Australian Antarctic Territory (scientific Exploration) Act 2016
is constitutionally invalid and should not have any legal binding on the associated persons.
8. They argued further that they used the directions of the core drilling for the rock sampling
which is mentioned in the article 6 of the act5.
It is given in the act that any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific
research, shall be prohibited and should not be promoted. However, the activity taken by
Australian Conservation Foundation is done to strengthen the effective utilization of the
resources and promote the interest of the society at large.
The next argument from the appellant was that the legality of the act says that the Minister
for Environment introduced the Australian Antarctic Territory (Scientific Exploration) bill
2016 into parliament on August 29. This act describes it as an ‘Act to implement a bilateral
treaty with New Zealand regulating scientific exploration within the Antarctic Treaty Area.
This argument legalise the previous two arguments regarding the bilateral treaty and the
3 Peter Willetts "South Atlantic Council Occasional Papers (Routledge, 2016)4 Marcus Haward "15. The originals: the role and influence of the original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty"
(2017) Handbook on the Politics of Antarctica 2325 Jennifer Jacquet, et al "‘Rational use’in Antarctic waters" (2016) 63 Marine Policy 28-34
Essay  on  Argumentive PDF_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.