Antarctica: Is it legal for a private citizen to take up residence?

[Donnerwetter]

Antarctica is inhabited (I assume: usually on a temporary basis) by women and men who work for government agencies, research organizations and the military.

Let’s say an individual, maybe a multi-billionaire, has the financial means to build a structure or a set of structures in Antarctica which offer(s) adequate shelter against the inhospitable conditions and who is also able and willing to pay for the logistics to keep this private residence amply supplied with energy, food, fresh water and all the perks of living in the civilized world.

Would this be legal and if not (which I assume), which law enforcement agency of which country would be charged with evicting this individual from Antarctica?

[Ken001]

No.

[Keeve]

Antarctic_Treaty_System says nothing about individuals. As long as they don’t set up a government or military, what’s the problem?

[Batistuta]

It seems that Greenpeace had a base (inhabited, I guess) in Antarctica for some time. So if an NGO can set up base, I don’t see what would stop a crazy individual from doing so.

[kanicbird]

Argentine Antarctica:

Argentine Antarctica

According the last Argentine national census, on October 2010 (winter) there were 230 habitants in the six permanent bases, including 9 families and 16 children as follow: 75 at Marambio, 66 at Esperanza, 33 at Jubany, 20 at San Martín, 19 at Belgrano II and 17 at Orcadas [2]

[Keeve]

I was going to say that the Argentine bases are permanent, but not the residents. But then I found this at the end of that same article:

In 1991, there were 142 “permanent residents” including 19 minors. “Residents” are families that live in Antarctica or scientists that have lived for more than two years.

On the other hand, even if they are there somewhat permanently, they are part of whatever it is that the bases do, not as private individuals like the OP asked.

[Colibri]

@Ken001

No.

Cite?

[kanicbird]

@Keeve

I was going to say that the Argentine bases are permanent, but not the residents. But then I found this at the end of that same article:On the other hand, even if they are there somewhat permanently, they are part of whatever it is that the bases do, not as private individuals like the OP asked.

One should ask what is their ability to stay there based on, it seems like it is because it is working for the base. The country would obviously want to keep the base as it supports their claim of their Antarctic territory.

Even Penguins, the only land animal (except for humans) to stay there during the winter months, are not able to support themselves from the land, but live off of reserves carried with them (stored as fat) gathered from someplace else (the sea).
So I do not think it’s a question of if it will be allowed, it may even be welcome if you also opened up a McD’s or Home Depot near one of those bases, but who has such resources and would desire to do so.

[aldiboronti]

I can’t see that there’s anything in international law to stop an individual from living in parts of Antarctica that are unclaimed.

From the Australian Antarctic Division website

Who owns Antarctica?

Australia is among seven nations that have claimed territory in Antarctica. These claims are based on discovery and effective occupation of the claimed area, and are legal according to each nation’s laws. Three countries – the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina – have overlapping claims in the Antarctic.

Some countries explicitly recognise these claims; some have a policy of not recognising any claims in Antarctica, and others reserve the right to make a claim of their own.

During the International Geophysical Year (IGY), 12 countries set up stations for scientific research on the continent, including the seven that previously asserted sovereignty over parts of Antarctica.

The Antarctic Treaty, eventually signed by many more countries, agreed to set aside Antarctica as scientific reserve, and suspended all future territorial claims in order to focus on research.

The Antarctic Treaty puts aside the potential for conflict over sovereignty by providing that nothing that occurs while the Treaty is in force will enhance or diminish territorial claims. Member states cannot make any new claims while the Treaty is in force.

In other words it’s all a hodge-podge. If you’re not a signatory to the Treaty (and as an individual you wouldn’t be) it seems to me that you could set up shop in some unclaimed piece and live there. Would the fact that you were a citizen of a signatory nation bar you in international law from doing that? That I don’t know.

[md2000]

I would thnk that the clause about “set up as a scientific reserve” would allow any signatory to claim that in their “territory” they cannot allow non-scientific construction. Any construction or habitat has some impact.

[Gatopescado]

It would be better than Detroit.