Talk:Australian Antarctic Territory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox factual errors

I am almost sure that the info box is incorrect on some points, but will refrain from editing becuase I cannot add correct information:

• Michael Jeffery is not a knight
• AAT is a territory so it will almost certainly have an Administrator, and not a Governor (that is, if there is a chief executive at all)
• Difference with Ross Dependency is that the RD is a separate colony, on an equal level with other Colony-level entities such as NSW, the other Australian states, former Hong Kong, Falklands etc. That is why it has its own separate Governor. I don;t think AAT is governed in the same way.

IANAL so don;t take the above as 100% rock-solid correct. But I know for certain that the infobox is at least misleading.

Of course, I might be grossly mistaken wrt the infobox information, in which case I invite you to get a big pair of <s></s> tags and strike my comment. 202.89.155.155 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=3358 is an official repository of links relating to the law of the AAT. Of note is "AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC TERRITORY ACT 1954- SECT 11", which states "The Governor-General may make Ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory." 202.89.155.155 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(I am the same anon IP as above) I still am not sure whether there is an office called "Governor of the Australian Antarctic Territory". If my intuition serves me right, whoever is in charge of the AAD is also in charge of the AAT, or the GG of Australia (as GG) is in notional control over this territory. Anyway, I am pretty sure there is no Governor of the Australian Antarctic Territory, and this confusion has arisen from someone lifting the Ross Dependency infobox, which was a bad move---the Ross Dependency does (nominally) have a separate legal system, the GG of NZ is specifically mentioned as "Governor of the Ross Dependency", and its government notices can be seen in the NZ Gazette under the heading "British Settlements Act" (or something). 202.89.155.155 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the number listed as the total area of the territory is including some area the info box is not, but according to http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=1845 the total area of the territory is 5,896,500 Km2, which is inconsistent with the larger number in the first paragraph of the article.

To User 202.89.x.x who posted on my talk page ..

Your IP keeps changing so I don't know who you are! In response to your comment, I was reverting Felix Portier's edits from before your edit - all you did was (correctly) comment out some of his incorrect information - I just removed the rest of it.

Please feel free to register an account so that I know I am talking to the same person and not just different IPs! -- Chuq 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply... I was just a little uncomfortable with this particular page on Wikipedia. It's been commented out again, so I'm all done here :D. Long time reader on WP, I just make minor punctuation fixes when I see them. 202.89.155.140 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Platcha removed from Station list

Platcha is a field hut in the Vestfold Hills about 15 km from Davis Station and not a research station in its own right. Gdenyer 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest settlement changed from Mawson to Davis

Davis Station is the largest settlement in the AAT, with a summer population of around 80, and winter of around 20. Mawson actually has the smallest population of the Australian Stations. Gdenyer 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Size

How big is the AAT ? The article says in text : “ The area is estimated at 6 119 818 km² ”. The infobox lists 5 896 500 km². Can anyone explain this discrepancy ? —Felix the Cassowary 07:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia: Western sector (5.032.000 km²) + Eastern sector (864.500 km²) = 5.896.500 km² (equal to the infobox here). I have no idea where 6,119,818 came from. —Maxime.Debosschere (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Flag of New Swabia.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of New Swabia.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Antarctic Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626203525/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ncet/communication/report/chapter6.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ncet/communication/report/chapter6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030143303/http://aadc-maps.aad.gov.au:80/aadc/gaz/search_names.cfm to http://aadc-maps.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/search_names.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Claim suspended

Article IV section 2 of the Antarctic Treaty says, "No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica." Doesn't this mean that all claims are effectively suspended? Note that this sentence is not about new claims only, in contrast with the next sentence ("No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.")

Also the treaty prescribes cooperation in such a manner that no state could effectively govern there. And because of the 1991 protocol, no country can freely use the natural resources, could they? Doesn't the present article pretend too much the area really being a dependent area of Australia? Bever (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bever: There are heaps of articles about disputed territories in Wikipedia, and few do give a perspective that favours the claimant, e.g. Taiwan. If you have well referenced information to add that specifically relates to the Australian claim you could add a section to this article. Otherwise the best way to balance it might be to prominently link other articles that give an international perspective on Territorial claims in Antarctica. I read that first quote as somewhat neutral on existing claims? It also prohibits denying existing claims? You could even read it as meaning no matter how many bases Russia builds the area still counts as Australia? Irtapil (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This reference from a fairly reputable Australian think tank - The Lowy Institute - gives some analysis of it, and implies some in Australia take the claim seriously. "The Antarctic Treaty requires that Antarctica be used only for peaceful, scientific purposes (Box 1). The Treaty also ‘freezes’ challenges to our claim of the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT)… The Treaty does not give us everything we might like. Our ‘sovereignty’ over the AAT is not fully protected. We cannot stop a research station being built in the AAT, and our laws apply only to Australians." Irtapil (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)