Fourth Annual Symposium on Pop Culture and International Law: “360” by Charli XCX – The Role of ‘Pioneers’ in the Construction of Identities in Chilean Antarctic Claims

[Luis Mauricio Bulnes is a Professor of International Relations at Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola (Perú), a Peruvian diplomat and lawyer]

All the views and opinions expressed in this article are personal and do not reflect the views or official positions of any of the authors employers. 

The album Brat by Charli XCX, released in 2024, was enthusiastically received by both critics and the public, being described as “imperious and cool, nuanced and vulnerable” and a reaction to “the tedium of our current authenticity obsession”. Through the lyrics of the song “360”, we can analyze the legitimacy of Chilean sovereignty claims in Antarctica and the role that history or the understanding of history has played in the construction of Chilean arguments.

On the second verse of the song “360”, Charli XCX states “Internationally recognized / I set the tone, it’s my design / And it’s stuck in your mind / Legacy is undebated,” We can apply this lyric to illustrate how certain historical legal arguments are not immutable but rather consolidated interpretations by a specific author. Similarly, just as Francisco de Vitoria’s ideas were reconstructed by James Brown Scott “to make sense of practices and institutions that were already reshaping the world”, thereby affirming his place as one of the fathers of International Law; in Chile, certain historical documents and fishing regulations in Antarctic zones were not always analyzed as legitimate titles for Chilean sovereignty.

It is from the work of Óscar Pinochet de la Barra in the book “La Antártica Chilena” (1944) that the legitimacy of Chilean claims over Antarctica shifts from justifications based on proximity to framing the occupation within a broader legal context of historical titles, giving “true value to all the references, orders, and administrative activities of both colonial and republican Chile concerning those frigid zones“. As Charli XCX points out, “When you’re in the mirror, do you like what you see? / When you’re in the mirror, you’re just looking at me”. When we examine current Chilean arguments, we not only see colonial titles or administrative concessions but also Pinochet de la Barra’s understanding of those titles.

This work aims to present a critical view of the process of constructing the Chilean titles of sovereignty on Antarctica, going beyond a mere chronological account. This approach will not analyze the legal validity of these titles but will instead offer an interpretation of their origins.

“I’m Everywhere, I’m So Julia”

The concept of “Antarctic consciousness“, proposed in 1949 by Captain Hugo Schmidt Prado, first commander of the Army’s Antarctic base, is well established in Chile. The continent shifted from being regarded by certain sectors of the citizenry as a fragmented territory with imprecise borders and a hostile geography, to an indispensable part of national interest.     

Historically, although there are significant precedents in Chile’s relationship with Antarctica, such as the unsuccessful attempt to send a Chilean expedition in 1906, the main exercise of Chilean sovereignty over the continent was the Supreme Decree No. 1,747 (1940), which aimed to establish the limits of Chilean sovereignty.

In a context marked by external pressures such as Norway’s claim in the Antarctica in 1939, the explorations of American Admiral Richard E. Byrd, and Argentina’s attempt to address the Antarctic issue at the Inter-American Conference in Havana in 1940,     the Chilean government decided to legally consolidate its claims with this act. This assertion was primarily based on arguments of geographical contiguity and the Latin American principle of mutual territorial recognition (uti possidetis). However, as Professor Escudero noted in the preface of the book “La Antártica Chilena” (1944) by Óscar Pinochet de la Barra, “Mr. Pinochet deserves credit for being the first among us to publicize a comprehensive work concerning Antarctica”. 

The Chilean diplomat Pinochet de la Barra (1920-2014) was one of the founders of the Chilean Antarctic Institute and served as its director from 1990 to 2003. He also participated in the first three Chilean expeditions to Antarctica and represented the country during the signing of the Antarctic Treaty, serving as head of delegation at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings on various occasions. His book “La Antártica Chilena” (1944), one of the most significant works of this period, was developed as a law degree thesis and became, since its publication, the Antarctic Bible for those interested in the subject.     

“La Antártica Chilena” is frequently cited to explain the territorial sovereignty rights that Chile claims over Antarctica. The main contribution of the book is to argue that proximity alone does not confer rights over a territory, emphasizing other factors such as the actual occupation by fishermen and whalers. As Pinochet de la Barra states, “Escudero based his entire defense of Chilean titles […] on proximity, or as he called it, nearness, plus the occupation by Chilean whalers of Deception Island […] However, to validate the existence of that occupation, it needed to be placed within a broader historical context. That is what I did, delving into the fascinating sixteenth century” (p.41). 

In the year of its publication, the work was promoted in various newspapers as “the most comprehensive study conducted to date on Chile’s Antarctic rights against the claims of other countries” (for example, in the editions of El Mercurio, La Nación, and La Hora from November 5, 1944). Knowing the impact of his book, these newspapers were compiled by Pinochet de la Barra in his personal library. Various publishers praised the book for its “novel conclusions” (La Opinión newspaper, November 12, 1944), particularly regarding historical and legal documentation. Reiterating the book’s central argument that discovery or proximity alone would not suffice to justify the appropriation of a territory, it highlights colonial historical precedents and administrative measures for economic exploitation as evidence of Chilean occupation on the continent (El Magallanes, February 18, 1945), thus demonstrating a “will to extend to the southern limit” (El Diario Ilustrado newspaper, April 18, 1945).

Starting from the rights of Spain and the Captaincy of Chile in Antarctica, the royal concessions to the Spanish conqueror Pedro Sancho de Hoz and subsequently to Pedro de Valdivia are analyzed, along with the royal decrees in favor of Gerónimo de Alderete, Francisco de Villagra, and their successors. The author states that the principle of uti possidetis “should be applied to the Chilean portion located in the Antarctic zone adjacent to America, […] granted to Chile by the express will of the Monarch”. 

At the same time, the letter that the liberator Bernardo O’Higgins directed to an English sailor in 1831 is valued as a “central document” and “a valuable precedent to facilitate the claim” (El Mercurio newspaper, November 21, 1944), in which he states that “Chile evidently possesses the key to the Atlantic from latitude 30 degrees south to the Antarctic Pole and all of the Great Pacific”.

As proof of the effective occupation of the territory, Pinochet de la Barra seeks to demonstrate the economic activity in the area carried out by private individuals on behalf of the State. The fishing concession decrees of 1902 and 1906 thus begin to “expressly speak of our right and sovereignty over Antarctica.” (Diario Ilustrado newspaper, January 2, 1949). The fishing incursions, along with the corresponding decrees, became measures “that signified effective possession […], allowing for the projection of a sector into the interior of the continent, with its edge at the South Pole, for which limits would be required a few years later, in 1940”. 

At the international level, the book was widely publicized. Copies were sent to Chile’s embassies in London “which were distributed according to the author’s instructions” (diplomatic note from March 16, 1949 – Ordinary No. 622/144 MB/EIF addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs). These books were given as gifts to various libraries, universities, research institutions, and university professors around the world. Thus, Pinochet de la Barra was regarded as “the uncompromising articulator of Chile’s territorial sovereignty in the 1950s”. Similarly, Argentine authors like Puig consider the work to be “the quintessential expositor of [the Chilean position]”. 

The impact was not only media-related, since at the level of political operators the book was considered “the most complete and useful work of this nature that has been done in Chile” (personal letter dated November 9, 1944, from Chilean diplomat and politician Joaquín Fernández F. addressed to Pinochet de la Barra). Additionally, in the memorandum prepared by the Antarctic Section of the Department of Boundaries of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1959) titled “The Chilean Antarctic Territory,” the influence of the work is evident, relying not only on uti possidetis but also on the communication from Bernardo O’Higgins and the various fishing concessions.

“They All Wanna Sound Like Me” (360 Featuring Robyn and Yung Lean)

Since its publication, the book’s intention to “touch the inner fibers of [Chilean] patriotism” has been recognized (Diario Ilustrado, February 6, 1949). The Chilean arguments based on both colonial concessions and fishing activity served to differentiate itself from Argentine claims, which emphasized only the latter component. Furthermore, the emphasis on both titles provided greater legitimacy than that based solely on mere physical control over the territory, as required by European and North American criteria for sovereignty. The relevance of the publication of Supreme Decree No. 1,747 of 1940 favored the dissemination of a work that would become the legal guide for Chilean interests in Antarctica.

Pinochet de la Barra’s work in reinterpreting these titles is comparable to the role played by James Brown Scott in developing the figure of sixteenth-century Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria as the father of international law. James Brown Scott (1866-1943) was a central figure in both academic and professional circles of North American international law during the early twentieth century. Scott was one of the founders of the American Society of International Law and the American Journal of International Law. He served as dean and professor at various universities and was an advisor to the U.S. administration. He had a decisive influence on the literature concerning international law as the editor of the series “Classics of International Law,” reissuing the public lectures of Francisco de Vitoria. In his academic publications, he promoted the narrative that the Spanish school of international law in the sixteenth century, and especially its founder, Francisco de Vitoria, laid the foundations for an international law that would become a universal rule of conduct. 

Scott’s theory of Spanish origin is linked to the rise of the United States as a global power and the resulting imperialist policies and practices. Ius gentium was constructed by the United States to “provide ideological justification for the universal law of the American century”. As Anne Orford said, Scott presented Vitoria “as the father of a new kind of international law for a new kind of world order”. Similarly, Pinochet de la Barra, at a time when “little or nothing is said in the texts of Geography, History, and Political Economy [of Chile] about this polar continent” (El Imparcial, December 18, 1944), decided to give new meaning to legal sources; a meaning that has persisted to this day. Currently, both a filtered image of Francisco de Vitoria through Scott’s analysis and Pinochet de la Barra’s understanding of a series of royal concessions and administrative documents prevail. An historical narrative that in both cases succeeded because it extended beyond academic circles and was employed for concrete purposes.

Both stories remind us that international law is a field of practice that is intrinsically indeterminate, as legal professionals participate in the very process of law creation by interpreting and conveying their understanding of concepts, rules, and principles. 

Conclusion: “Brat and it’s Completely Different but also still Brat”

On October 11, 2024, the remix album of Brat, titled “Brat and It’s Completely Different but Also Still Brat,” was released, in which most songs “have been rewired, but without completely erasing the essence of the originals”. Currently, the analysis of Chilean titles in Antarctica is influenced by the discourse of Pinochet de la Barra. Even though subsequent developments have appropriated these interpretations in their own remixes, the initial imprint has not been abandoned, and there is little critical analysis of these sources, turning Antarctic boundary studies into an exegesis of what was presented by Pinochet de la Barra. As Charli XCX would say, “I’ll always be the one”.