Talk:List of Antarctic territorial claims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antarctica
Antarctica Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Antarctica, which collaborates on articles related to Antarctica. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 previouse versions of the article they were)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)