Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?

[Arab Jamahiriyahs]

Just so to open up a new theatre for WWIII.

[The Nihilistic view]

Where else are you gonna test your weapons?

Deserts, islands...

France.............

[Trevor Phillip Enterprises]

It is unfair, but to the Australian, but the actual citizens of Antarctica! AND YES I DO MEAN THE PENGUINS! They deserve to run a sovereign without the interference of humans who do not fully understand their way of life! Free Antarctica from the human oppressors!

#antarticanindependence2014

[Arab Jamahiriyahs]

It is unfair, but to the Australian, but the actual citizens of Antarctica! AND YES I DO MEAN THE PENGUINS! They deserve to run a sovereign without the interference of humans who do not fully understand their way of life! Free Antarctica from the human oppressors!

#antarticanindependence2014

Agree.

[The Nihilistic view]

What is every body talking about? Penguins are British citizens and are a vital part of our South Atlantic Territories.

[Republic of Hasgriu]

Deserts, islands...

France.............

California...........

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

Just so to open up a new theatre for WWIII.

Like an IRL map pack it be.

[Risottia]

Just so to open up a new theatre for WWIII.

So basically it will be partitioned between the Finns and the Russians?

[All Natural France]

Where else are you gonna test your weapons?

Deserts, islands...

That's exactly what America did with Bikini Atoll, Nuclear Testing, which ended in the contamination of 第五福龍丸/Daigo Fukuryū Maru and Inhabitants of the Ron̄ļap/Rongelap Atoll and Ron̄dik/Rongerik Atoll were affected with

Virtually all the inhabitants experienced severe radiation sickness, including itchiness, sore skin, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue. Their symptoms also included burning eyes and swelling of the neck, arms, and legs. The inhabitants were forced to abandon the islands, leaving all their belongings, three days after the test. They were relocated to Kwajalein for medical treatment

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Deserts, islands...

That's exactly what America did with Bikini Atoll, Nuclear Testing, which ended in the contamination of 第五福龍丸/Daigo Fukuryū Maru and Inhabitants of the Ron̄ļap/Rongelap Atoll and Ron̄dik/Rongerik Atoll were affected with

Virtually all the inhabitants experienced severe radiation sickness, including itchiness, sore skin, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue. Their symptoms also included burning eyes and swelling of the neck, arms, and legs. The inhabitants were forced to abandon the islands, leaving all their belongings, three days after the test. They were relocated to Kwajalein for medical treatment

Do you really think Estado Nacional cares? He advocates for the burning down of the Amazon.

[All Natural France]

That's exactly what America did with Bikini Atoll, Nuclear Testing, which ended in the contamination of 第五福龍丸/Daigo Fukuryū Maru and Inhabitants of the Ron̄ļap/Rongelap Atoll and Ron̄dik/Rongerik Atoll were affected with

Do you really think Estado Nacional cares? He advocates for the burning down of the Amazon.

Oh.
Nevermind then.

[Australian rePublic]

Deserts, islands...

That's exactly what America did with Bikini Atoll, Nuclear Testing, which ended in the contamination of 第五福龍丸/Daigo Fukuryū Maru and Inhabitants of the Ron̄ļap/Rongelap Atoll and Ron̄dik/Rongerik Atoll were affected with

Virtually all the inhabitants experienced severe radiation sickness, including itchiness, sore skin, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue. Their symptoms also included burning eyes and swelling of the neck, arms, and legs. The inhabitants were forced to abandon the islands, leaving all their belongings, three days after the test. They were relocated to Kwajalein for medical treatment

Don't forget what the British did at Maralinga

[Parhe]

A) I feel there is a disadvantage to signatories. If, for example, a nation who is not a signatory wanted to take Australia's territory, or nuke Australian Antarctic Territory, Australia would be disadvantaged in that we (Australia) aren't allowed to stop it with military intervention
B) We (Australia) can't claim sovereignty over the claims, which means that we, Australia, can't build cities there right? but if a non-signatory nation wanted to build a city in our (Australia's) claim, there in every legal right to?
Am I correct with everything that I'm saying? What benefits do the signitories get? I feel the signatiry nations are getting the bad end of the deal here
C) The USA and Russia have the right to establish a claim whenever they want, correct? Does this mean that other nations have to forego their claims, or that they get to claim the un-claimed part? Are they under different rules?

This all seems unfair
A) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
B) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
C) Why do the USA and Russia get special treatment?

What is your opinion?

It isn't special treatment. It is the fact that no one cares enough and is powerful enough to do anything if a non-signatory decides to do something against the treaty. Same as every other treaty, it only binds the ones that choose to sign it. Or in other cases when forced to like Japan did to Korea in the 1800's. That is like saying North Korea gets special treatment to make nuclear weapons.

[United States Kingdom]

A) I feel there is a disadvantage to signatories. If, for example, a nation who is not a signatory wanted to take Australia's territory, or nuke Australian Antarctic Territory, Australia would be disadvantaged in that we (Australia) aren't allowed to stop it with military intervention
B) We (Australia) can't claim sovereignty over the claims, which means that we, Australia, can't build cities there right? but if a non-signatory nation wanted to build a city in our (Australia's) claim, there in every legal right to?
Am I correct with everything that I'm saying? What benefits do the signitories get? I feel the signatiry nations are getting the bad end of the deal here
C) The USA and Russia have the right to establish a claim whenever they want, correct? Does this mean that other nations have to forego their claims, or that they get to claim the un-claimed part? Are they under different rules?

This all seems unfair
A) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
B) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
C) Why do the USA and Russia get special treatment?

What is your opinion?

Not sure about Russia, but the USA has always gotten some special treatment, considering it is sadly the world's superpower.

[Rio Cana]

That treaty comes up for revision in 2041. Chile and Argentina will continue until then to press there sovereignty to parts of the Antarctica. After all. its in there neighborhood unlike the other nations.

Chile and Argentina are 966 KM. (600 miles) from Antarctica.
New Zealand 1930 KM. (1200 miles).
Australia 2400 KM. (1550 miles.)
South Africa 3380 KM. (2200 miles).

[Syrixia]

Why can't nations just say "Let's just have this be neutral territory, we can build bases on it but we can't officially claim it"

It would be so much simpler...

[The Sotoan Union]

I'm getting this feeling that most of your questions can be answered with google.

Don't you think that if Google had the answer, Google wouldn't have answered my questions?

I found the answers with google. I don't know what you were doing.

[Shofercia]

It is unfair, but to the Australian, but the actual citizens of Antarctica! AND YES I DO MEAN THE PENGUINS! They deserve to run a sovereign without the interference of humans who do not fully understand their way of life! Free Antarctica from the human oppressors!

#antarticanindependence2014

Agree.

Fight for Penguin Rights! Also, nice flag!

[Costa Fierro]

Who would want to even claim Antartic territory?

Countries interested in the apparent mineral and other natural resource riches on the continent. Plus, exclusive rights in the seas around the continent as well, which are rich in marine life and edible fish.

[Nickel Empire]

Everybody should leave Antarctica so they can make Happy Feet 3.

[Costa Fierro]

Why can't nations just say "Let's just have this be neutral territory, we can build bases on it but we can't officially claim it"

It would be so much simpler...

Legally it is neutral territory. The claims on Antarctica are not legally recognized by other states, hence the overlapping claims.

[The Sotoan Union]

A) I feel there is a disadvantage to signatories. If, for example, a nation who is not a signatory wanted to take Australia's territory, or nuke Australian Antarctic Territory, Australia would be disadvantaged in that we (Australia) aren't allowed to stop it with military intervention
B) We (Australia) can't claim sovereignty over the claims, which means that we, Australia, can't build cities there right? but if a non-signatory nation wanted to build a city in our (Australia's) claim, there in every legal right to?
Am I correct with everything that I'm saying? What benefits do the signitories get? I feel the signatiry nations are getting the bad end of the deal here
C) The USA and Russia have the right to establish a claim whenever they want, correct? Does this mean that other nations have to forego their claims, or that they get to claim the un-claimed part? Are they under different rules?

This all seems unfair
A) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
B) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
C) Why do the USA and Russia get special treatment?

What is your opinion?

Not sure about Russia, but the USA has always gotten some special treatment, considering it is sadly the world's superpower.

You didn't even go 25 years back in history?