NationStates

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:19 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

We should give control of Antarcica to the polar bears and the penguins. Humans have no place there.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:32 pm**

The All-Natural Future wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

We should give control of Antarcica to the polar bears and the penguins. Humans have no place there.

typical northern Imperialist invaders! You can keep your Bears to yourselves thanks!!!!

and if Anything Control of Antartica should be a granted to New Zealand and Rarotonga (fact the first person to actually discover Antartica was a Rarotongan who had travelled via Aotearoa New Zealand)

I'd compromise on a shared union between NZ - Australia-South Africa-Chile

Oh OP the Treaty is too lax, there should be NO territorial claims to Antartica

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:48 pm**

Kratu wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

Why?

We are the most suited to control it.

Besides, freedom.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:49 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:
Kratu wrote:Why?

We are the most suited to control it.

Besides, freedom.

yeah no

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:50 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:
Kratu wrote:Why?

We are the most suited to control it.

Besides, freedom.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:50 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:
Kratu wrote:Why?

We are the most suited to control it.

Besides, freedom.

The Underlined is bullshit.
The Bolded is Hilarious.
The Italicized defies all logic that would come to the Antarctic Treaty and the fact that Russia is the successor of the USSR, thus validating their cliaims, and the soverignity of Argentina, Chile, The United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Australia, etc. due to the fact they have claims established before the treaty came to effect.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:53 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:
Kratu wrote:Why?

We are the most suited to control it.

Besides, freedom.

But what is there that is worth having?

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:55 pm**

Kratu wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:
We are the most suited to control it.

Besides, freedom.

But what is there that is worth having?

We'd drain the shit out all the oil of Antarctica, like we do with Alaska. We rape the land for our personal gain.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:58 pm**

Estado Nacional wrote:Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUxK_0WLbg

the answer to your question.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:02 pm**

The All-Natural Future wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

We should give control of Antarcica to the polar bears and the penguins. Humans have no place there.

>Antarctica
>Polar bears

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:04 pm**

Planita wrote:
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:
We are the most suited to control it.

Besides, freedom.

That's hilarious!

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:11 pm**

Of course. How the hell am I supposed to colonize Antarctica when the caps melt?

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:58 pm**

Utceforp wrote:
The All-Natural Future wrote:We should give control of Antarcica to the polar bears and the penguins. Humans have no place there.

>Antarctica
>Polar bears

SCIENCE!

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:26 pm**

Estado Nacional wrote:Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

Where else are you gonna test your weapons?

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:26 pm**

Insaeldor wrote:Who would want to even claim Antartic territory? Not like these much in the way of productivity there and it's nearly impossible to set up a continuously inhabited settalment in the area. So who going to go to war over useless territory and at that why against Australia?

Why Australia. I thought it was the best example since it is my home nation

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:29 pm**

The Sotoan Union wrote: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?

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:30 pm**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

Because?

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:33 pm**

Australian Republic wrote:
Insaeldor wrote:Who would want to even claim Antartic territory? Not like these much in the way of productivity there and it's nearly impossible to set up a continuously inhabited settalment in the area. So who going to go to war over useless territory and at that why against Australia?

Why Australia. I thought it was the best example since it is my home nation

Not exactly. i think the best example is the overlappers, specifically, Argentinanian, Chilean, and British Claims to Antarctica.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:35 pm**

All Natural France wrote:
Australian Republic wrote:Why Australia. I thought it was the best example since it is my home nation

Not exactly. i think the best example is the overlappers, specifically, Argentinanian, Chilean, and British Claims to Antarctica.

Further complicated by Brazil's.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:39 pm**

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:
All Natural France wrote:Not exactly. i think the best example is the overlappers, specifically, Argentinanian, Chilean, and British Claims to Antarctica.

Further complicated by Brazil's.

Is it? I'm not seeing it.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:43 pm**

All Natural France wrote:
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Further complicated by Brazil's.

Is it? I'm not seeing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Antarctica

We have a weak semi-claim on the bit facing our coast.

Posted: **Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:44 pm**

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:
All Natural France wrote:Is it? I'm not seeing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Antarctica

We have a weak semi-claim on the bit facing our coast.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Silly me

That's then 9 countries, + two others free to take unclaimed land.

Posted: **Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:24 am**

Australian Republic wrote: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

Australia signed this:
Article I
1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon.
2. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.

Article X

Each of the Contracting Parties undertakes to exert appropriate efforts, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to the end that no one engages in any activity in Antarctica contrary to the principles or purposes of the present Treaty.

Article XI

1. If any dispute arises between two or more of the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Treaty, those Contracting Parties shall consult among themselves with a view to having the dispute resolved by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. Any dispute of this character not so resolved shall, with the consent, in each case, of all parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement; but failure to reach agreement on reference to the International Court shall not absolve parties to the dispute from the responsibility of continuing to seek to resolve it by any of the various peaceful means referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.

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

Wrong.
Article 4 – Article IV
Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as:

a. a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica;

b. a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise;

c. prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of any other State's rights of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

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. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

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?

Wrong again.
See Article 4

This all seems unfair

First try and read the ATS. You clearly lack a lot of clues about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty

Posted: **Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:26 am**

Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

Sorry dude. I don't see you being able to wrestle it from the Vikings.

Posted: **Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:34 am**

Australian Republic wrote:
Estado Nacional wrote:Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

Where else are you gonna test your weapons?

Deserts, islands...

NationStates

Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?

Re: Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?

Re: Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?

Re: Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?

Re: Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?

Re: Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?