These two amendments should attempt to satisfy such concerns. The issue with Norway is addressed in the 1st article . . . This is very helpful, and is a major step in the right direction, thanks.
. . . returning to territorial expansionism is a very dangerous and certainly unwarranted precedent.
This was part of my initial reaction as well. Upon further reading into the matter, however, it apears that Atlasia has operated in the territory in question for many decades and began to consider annexing the parcel in question at around the same time Great Britain made its own territorial claim on the Antarctic continent. I am still leaning in the direction of opposition, but admittedly find the proposition much less repulsive than was the case at first glance.
It gives us a location that is definitively Atlasian to serve as a base to facilitate Atlasian scientific observation and study of Antarctica. Such will enhance our capability to research further into Antarctica, thus benefiting global scientific knowledge. Plus, it helps secure for Atlasia what could be considerable reserves of oil and fish that are currently claimed by no other nation.
Then again, to be perfectly honest, none of these reasons seem particularly compelling to me. We do not need a territorial claim to continue having a secure, long-term commitment to the pursuit of scientific endeavors in Antarctica, and global scientific knowledge will be benefited in either event because the Antarctic Treaty put into motion collaborative efforts for countries to pool their resources and share their scientific findings to make optimal use of their finite resources committed to the region. Atlasia already has extremely generous access to fish and oil resources, and both of those reserves - as I previously expressed - could do wonders for the economy of and living conditions within a developing nation, whereas in Atlasian hands the boons would be relatively modest (and at worst could come across as seizing for ourselves buried riches to squander before Third World countries have any reasonable opportunity to develop them despite their comparable proximity to said resources). And that is aside from the fact that I'm opposed to expanded oil production on the part of Atlasia, anyway.
Are there any other reasons to speak of? Also, why shouldn't such a hypothetical territory fall into the hands of the Pacific region, whose merchant marine assets have relatively direct and straightforward access to Byrd from its major ports? I do not mean to pose too pointed of questions or take on any sort of negative tone, but I still need a bit of convincing here.
