Frontier Vigilantism? Australia and Contemporary Representations of Australian Antarctic Territory

This article considers the way in which recent commentators have represented Australia's relationship with Antarctica including current and future challenges. While successive Australian governments from the 1950s onwards have sought inter alia to develop and protect the country's southern oceanic and Antarctic interests, concern has persisted about the activities of other parties. The signing of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty helped to ensure that the territorial status quo prevailed with regard to the Australian Antarctic Territory. The entry of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) into force in 1994 created new opportunities for further expressions of sovereign rights in this region. While mindful of the evolving legal geographies affecting Antarctica, our paper asks a series of questions about this relationship with the far south: how has Australian national identity been informed and influenced by Antarctic engagements? Will UNCLOS actually weaken the Antarctic Treaty System? Finally, do contemporary Australian pronouncements on the Antarctic hint at anxieties reminiscent of the 1950s? We conclude with a warning that nationalistic evocations may well unsettle a delicate balance concerning the Southern Ocean and disputed ownership of Antarctica.     

Methods, Theories and Evidence: A Reply to Arzheimer

Kai Arzheimer's careful and thorough comment upon my earlier BJPIR article raises a number of important issues. While engaging in a thorough critique of the original article's methods, he also points to the (perhaps) inherent problems any quantitative approach may encounter in this area. The consequences of this are that if we wish to assess whether there are social determinants to participation, quantitative methods are limited. In the light of this, after addressing some mis-characterisations in his comment, this reply seeks to provide qualitative evidence that there may well be a link between welfare state institutions and outputs and participation.     

Lacanian Political Theory: A Reply to Robinson

In this response to Andrew Robinson's review of 'The politics of lack,' I argue that, although Robinson puts forward a number of interesting and succinct points about Lacanian political theory, his review rests on misunderstandings of post-structuralist political theory and misreadings of the texts under consideration. More specifically, I argue that his use of the labels 'Lacanian' and 'theorist of lack' is problematic; that his position rests on a misunderstanding of the relationship between ontology and politics in post-structuralist theory; and that it is a mistake to allege that Lacanian political theory is inherently conservative.