Welcome to Brainstuff, a production of I Heart Radio, Hey brain Stuff. Lauren Vogelbaum. Here. In May of the year two thousand, Rodney Marks, an astro physicists spending the winter at the South Pole, died suddenly after an acute illness. Because no flights could land during the frigid winter, Mark's body had to be stored for months until late October and then autopsied in New Zealand, and Arctica's nearest neighbor.
The mysterious death touched off an international incident. Marks was an Australian working on a US base, and the investigation into his death was being handled in New Zealand. If it turned out to be ruled a homicide, where would the case be tried. It's not a simple question. Despite being the temporary home for thousands of scientific researchers, civilian staffers, and a few hardy tourists, Antarctica is literally in no
man's land. According to the nineteen sixty one and Art Treaty, the snowpacked continent belongs to no nation, which makes criminal jurisdictions a messy affair. In the United States, if you commit a crime, you're tried by either a state or federal court, depending on the type of crime and where it took place. American courts even have jurisdiction for certain crimes committed outside the nation's borders, like a murder on a ship flying the American flag or a crime at
a U S military base or installation overseas. Pretty straightforward. An Arctica, though, is anything but straightforward. For the article of this episode is based on How Stuff Work. Spoke by email with Dr Alan Hemmings, an expert on Antarctic governance who spent two winters at the South Pole with the British Antarctic Survey. He explained that there are no clear legal jurisdictions in Antarctica because there are no recognized territories.
Seven countries Argentina, Australia, Britain, Chile, France, New Zealand and Norway make pie shaped territorial claims on the ic waste land, and the United States and Russia exercise sovereignty at their own research stations, but none of these claims are officially recognized by the Antarctic Treaty, and a few of them even overlap. Instead, the general rule is that a crime committed by a US citizen at a US owned research
facility would be prosecuted in a US court. The same goes for Russia, New Zealand, Japan, or any of the other twenty nine countries operating research stations in Antarctica. Hemmings said, But if the dead person and the alleged murderer are from different states, that is, countries and don't recognize each other's claim, and most don't. Particularly if the critical events occur away from anybody's station, say at a campsite, then
it won't necessarily be clear who has jurisdiction. As far as Hemmings knows, there's never been a criminal prosecution for a murder committed on the continent. That's not to say it's free from violence and vice. The dark and frigid Antarctic winner, coupled with long stretches of isolation and cramped cohabitation, plus heavy drinking, have driven some visitors to the brink. Stories circulate of a Russian man who killed a companion over a chess game, and of a researcher sick with
cabin fever who burned down his own station. Ultimately, New Zealand claimed legal jurisdiction in the Marks case, which we mentioned at the top since it had possession of his body. An investigation uncovered no clear evidence of foul play, so there were no arrests or prosecutions. The leading theory is that Marks drank a batch of bad liquor, as his
autopsy showed his body contained lethal traces of methanol. Hemmings believes that in the event of a particularly heinous crime involving citizens from different countries, the parties quote will likely cooperate with each other and may very well agree that one of them takes jurisdiction or come up with some imaginative of solution. But some legal observers are concerned that goodwill and cooperation aren't enough, and that the decades old in Arctic Treaty needs to be updated before a truly
messy crime happens on the ice. In a two three paper, Townsend University law professor W. Michael second Ish proposed that the twenty two nations that made up a governing Committee for an Arctic Affairs establish a unified criminal code. Second Is wrote one cannot easily determine whether an action is a criminal act because of the various countries involved and
multiple basis for jurisdiction. This is an intolerable situation for a criminal defendant and violates any reasonable concept of due process. In the absence of such an international agreement, there's no saying how or where in an Arctic murderer would be called to justice. This issue may become increasingly important as more and more nations in corporations i in Arctica's rich oil reserves or future exploitation. Today's episode is based on
the article Who's in charge of investigating depths? In an article on how stuff works dot Com written by Dave Rubes. Brain Stuff is production by Heart Radio in partnership with how stuff Works dot Com, and it's produced by Tyler Klang. Four more podcasts from my heart Radio visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.