Emerging Law of the Sea Issues in the Antarctic Maritime Area: A Heritage for the New Century?

This article focuses on three emerging law of the sea issues for states cooperating in management of the Antarctic and its maritime area. The first of these is no newcomer: How to regulate the dramatic increase in illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in the Southern Ocean? The second question, according to the letter of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, awaits the countries claiming sovereignty over portions of territory in the Antarctic 10 years from the entry into force of the Convention for each of them. The question here is what to do with the requirement contained in that Convention relating to the submission of information on the outer limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the Commission on the Continental Shelf? Finally, there is a third tricky question: Who is competent to regulate, and accordingly to ban, mineral activities in the Southern Ocean seabed? Is it the International Seabed Authority as the global body, or the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties through their regional cooperation? This question may well never be put on the policy agenda for any global forum; but it may well be posed at any time and by any third party, whether in the UN General Assembly or, more likely, in the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority.     

The two giant sister species of the Southern Ocean, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Dissostichus eleginoides</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Dissostichus mawsoni</Emphasis>, differ in karyotype and chromosomal pattern of ribosomal RNA genes

The two giant notothenioid species, the Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides and the Antarctic toothfish D. mawsoni, are important components of the Antarctic ichthyofauna and heavily exploited commercially. They have similar appearance and size, both are piscivorous and bentho-pelagic, but differ in their geographic distribution and absence/presence of the antifreeze trait. We karyotyped these two sister species by analyzing specimens collected from multiple Antarctic and sub-Antarctic sites. Both species have a diploid number of 48, but differ in karyotypic formula, (2m + 2sm + 44a) for D. eleginoides and (2m + 4sm + 42a) for D. mawsoni, due to an extra pair of submetacentric chromosomes in the latter. Chromosomal fluorescence in situ hybridization with rDNA probes revealed unexpected species-specific organization of rRNA genes; D. mawsoni possesses two rDNA loci (versus one locus in D. eleginoides), with the second locus mapping to its additional submetacentric chromosome. The additional rRNA genes in D. mawsoni may be a cold-adaptive compensatory mechanism for growth and development of this large species in freezing seawater.