Talk:Territorial claims in Antarctica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Italian Base

There is also and italian territory, named "baia di terra nova" in the south. Look http://preview.exalead.com/search?action=search&q=%22baia+di+terra+nova%22&x=0&y=0 And here: http://www.cifr.it/cifr2/mi-antartide1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:31, 11 September 2006 (talk • contribs) 212.171.27.109

NO, that's simply a scientific research base, not a territorial clamei. Italy is a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty since 1981, which means it acceded to the status quo. Fastifex 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea Stupid.--190.18.230.97 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

errors

Many errors in the introduction section:

• not all sectors reach the south pole (the Norway sector does not)
• Only USA and Russia (then USSR) "reserved the right to claim later". India and China signed without such note. It seems like someone arbitrary added, "the big" countries to the "reserved list"...
• the coordinates of the sector, where there are no claims are not mentioned (in previous versions of the article they were)

I think that the fact that Russia isn't even mentioned is funny, considering they discovered and pretty much own it in the ideological sense. So that means I am a Russian fan!! 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

sectors template

Maybe the sectors list should be made as template (so that the lists here and on the Antarctica page and somewhere else if needed) are the same. Alinor 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Joke removed

I'm gonna assume "George and Tom Land" is a joke! 8) Yeesh, you guys got greedy. Only MIT deserves that big a swath of the continent!

Antarctic Treaty

There was a bit of urban myth around about how the Antarctic Treaty affected claims. It specifically avoided dealing with the issues of the existing claims, these being left to normal international law recognition/refusal of recognition. They clearly still exist - as can be seen in the specific articles, those countries with claims still very much pursue them and have them in existance as legal entities within their legal systems.

The text of the treaty can be read at National Science Foundation (US).

The language is clear:

Article IV: "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".

Given that as of the signing of the Treaty there was no country exercising exclusive sovereignty over any part of the territory, then no country can achieve exclusive sovereignty without violating the Treaty. Thus, currently no country can assert exclusive sovereignty and no country can deny sovereignty to any other country as long as the Treaty is in force.

Isn't this sufficiently clear? Esquierman (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope that is original research based on synthesis of a position based upon your interpretation of a primary source. All of which is in violation of the way Wikipedia works. I trust that is clear. Regards, Justin talk 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

US Antarctica?!?

First point of reference: www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2002_05/pendleton.antartica

on 25/11/39 President Roosevelt instructed Admiral Byrd, the leader of the Antarctic expedition that its' members 'may take...steps...which might assist in supporting a territorial claim'. One Leonard Berlin did. Similar actions occurred during Operation Highjump. Some well-known maps mooted in this article show Marie Byrd Land as US territory.

www.fas.org/irp/offd.cs/pdd26 (Presidential Decree) 'the US has a solid basis of a claim in Antarctica resulting from its' activities prior to 1959'. Authored by the Executive Secretary to the Department of Defence.

I think we need a (US-based) article similar in style to 'Brazilian Antarctic Geopolitics'. Any takers???????? RAYMI 23/4/07 80.68.39.212 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember my 3rd & 4th grade classrooms having hanging maps of both the United States and the World (that rolled up over the blackboard)which showed some of Antarctica as being US territory (or at least claimed by the US). This was in the early 1980s (1980-82), and the map seemed quite old even then (like it was at least 10-15 yrs. old), but it couldn't have been any older than 1959, because it showed both Alaska and Hawaii as states. 173.16.124.196 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Zone of Interest

Yeah, that. Should(n't) it be added to the list of claims? 71.235.66.254 04:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian claim

As the article stands it seems to me to imply that the Norwegian claim does not correspond to the others with regards to the southern and northern border. I would like to point out that the Norwegian claim according to the law of 1930 only specifies east-west limits, but it has not been clarified since the Antarctic treaty came into effect. The Norwegian law of 2003 on territorial waters specify that the territorial limit is 12 nm also in Dronning Maud Land and Peter I Island. This was assessed to not conflict with the treaty's prohibition of expanding claims as it did not in fact expand the claim itself. France in 1971, New Zealand in 1978 and Australia in 1990 have also explicitly expanded the territorial limits of their antarctic claims. My point is that it is more correct to imply that the Norwegian claim follows the norms set out by the other claimants, but that it hasn't been clarified.Inge 11:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cf. § British claims north of 60th parallel below. It would be a great help if you gave specific references for the dated laws you mention, if you can?

Redirect?

Today, I have moved the list of antarctic territories from this article to the already existing article List of Antarctic territories (which is one of a list of countries/territories by continent). (For preceding discussion, see User_talk:Classical_geographer#List_of_Antarctic_countries.)

Now the only thing left in this article is a discussion of the Antarctic Treaty. However, the Treaty already has an article of its own. I propose therefore to remove the contents of this article, and make it a straight redirect to List of Antarctic territories. From there, the article on the Antarctic Treaty should also be easy to find.

I'll wait a few days before doing this, in case other people feel we might solve the duplicity in another way. Classical geographer (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Recognised claims

I believe I have read somewhere that some countries have recognised some claims. For instance that the UK and Norway have recognised each other's claims. Is this so? I ask since I am not able to find where I read it and that some newspaper articles claim that noone has recognised any claims.Inge (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering about just that. I see that someone has added to the Queen Maud Land article that the "Norwegian claim has been officially recognised by Australia, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom." It also gives a source.[1] -- Nidator ^{T / C} 11:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

South Africa, Peru and... Spain??

The image "Nations with history of Antarctic territorial claims." lists South Africa, Peru and Spain as "Nations which have informally reserved the right to make territorial claims on the continent." These nations however are not mentioned anywhere in the article. I move for deletion of that image unless a citation is given. I faintly recall that South Africa indeed has once appeared to have an interest in asserting an Antarctic claim. Using the frontage theory Peru would have been allotted with a sector but so would Uruguay and Uruguay is not listed. As for Spain... never heard of it. Tordesillas? What about Portugal then? Miguelrj (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Until 1994 South Africa claimed the former German Swabia, post 1994 the claim has not been dropped by the goverment but they do not claim it officialy, ill find a source, I think i remember a few. Scottykira --196.23.52.172 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Basis of Claims

I was looking for (and it seems to be an omission) the 'legal' basis of the claim each country makes for the exact boundaries of their respective claims. There is nothing in this article. There is something on the Chilean claim in the Chilean territory article and there are the 'arguments for' in the Argentine territory article (but not an explanation of the boundaries). It would I think be useful if this article set out how each country argues that its claim is valid and why they settled on the boundaries of their claim - the latter, in particular, seems to be mostly fairly inexplicable. Maybe the boundaries aren't really explicable but presumably each country has at least formally put forward reasons. Could someone who knows the subject do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.97.114 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial Claims?

What sense does it add to the article a claim that has not been made ​​by Brazil? The area of interest is a hoax that Wikipedia is promoting with actions like this. A Brazilian writer proposed Antarctic an area of ​​interest for your country and here it as Brazil's territorial claim. With the same right should be added then claims posited by writers from several countries around the world. This is absurd. Please see. Greetings.--Nerêo (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Unclaimed, Marie Byrd Land

The current map shown for Marie Byrd Land is a micronational map of westarctica, highlighting Peter I Island, I have tried to replace it with a more accurate map, but User: Wee Curry Monster will not allow it, insisting that this inaccurate map, of which I had added when I was a more inexperienced user, is the editors prefered map, will somebody please request this instead me, because I give up this editwar, I dont care if you use the map I was tried again and again to replace it with, or a different map, I don't care, just get rid of my old mistake. — Phoenix500 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (PDT)

Incorrect, several other users have reverted your changes not just myself. Review the edit history. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Changes theat were reverted were micronational claims of Westarctica, and Talossa, however since Marie Byrd Lands Map was left blank I copied the map of westarctica, and placed it as the map, (this change was never reverted), but westarctica included Peter I Island, Byrd Land does not, therefor it would be better to leave it blank than use such an inaccurate map, but your the boss, your decision. — Phoenix500 (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2011 (PDT)

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)

New claims

The article currently states, in the section, "Antarctic Treaty", that the treaty has the effect that, "No new claim can be made, except by the United States or the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation". However, looking at the text of the Treaty, the caveat that it does not effect the US or SU/RUS is not present. What is the source for this caveat? Thom2002 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this apparently uncited assertion. Thom2002 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it in quite a number of sources. I believe it was a caveat the USA and USSR gave when signing, rather than one in the treaty. CMD (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source, I had seen that page myself, although it only appears to cover the US position prior to signing the treaty. There is no evidence I have seen that they filed any kind of reservation, which is a formal process. Thom2002 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the claim on many sources, including atlases and books and the like. I'm sure it's from somewhere. From what I remember, they both had different missions on the ground and held it within their right to turn these into a political claim. This is out there, I'm sure, there's just the need to find it. If it's not out there, then its a very well established urban myth! CMD (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Equador

The table says the Equador claim is from 1967 but the treaty that Equador signed up to in 1987 says no new claims after 1961 so how do they have an official claim ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Claim recognition clarification required

The article contains the following sentence:

The UK, France, Australia, New Zealand and Norway all recognize each other's claims,[1] which do not overlap.

This could mean (a) these countries claims do not overlap each other and they fully recognize each others ENTIRE claims even if they overlap that of another country outside this group

(b) these countries claims do not overlap each other but at least one of them overlaps another country's claim, and they recognize each other's claims as long as it does not overlap that of ANY other country, or only so long as it does not overlap that of another country in this group, even though it could overlap that of another country NOT in the group;

and in the case of non-recognition of a claim containing overlapping areas, is the entire claim not recognized, or only the non overlapping region? or is the entire claim recognized including overlapping regions?

Clearly, this has to be clarified, as the article statement is quite unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:15C0:66A3:2:21A:4DFF:FE40:38FF (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a), I've clarified it. CMD (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)