SENATE BILL: Antarctic Incorporation Act (Failed)

[Donerail]

Under the Antarctic Treaty, Atlasia has reserved rights to claim territory below 60° South; it is time to exercise such a right before the Russians and Brazilians do. Such a claim would allow Atlasian scientists a legitimate base for Antarctic exploration and also claim Atlasian rights to whatever future valuable materials could be found in the sector. The sector is currently unclaimed and claiming it would not claim land currently claimed by another country; indeed, this bill would simply formalize claims to Marie Byrd Land established by the Atlasian Antarctic Service Expedition, which this directive suggests would be a solid base for a claim. The President has expressed his support for the measure.

I am looking at claiming Antarctica to be Atlasian land and given that it is about as south as you can get there is only one place to put it.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These two amendments should attempt to satisfy such concerns. The issue with Norway is addressed in the 1st article (excluding any territory claimed by any other sovereign state).

[Donerail]

Frankly- I'm inclined to agree with Kalwejt.... why is this needed? Is there a risk of other countries booting our researchers from the continent?

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.

[Donerail]

Frankly- I'm inclined to agree with Kalwejt.... why is this needed? Is there a risk of other countries booting our researchers from the continent?

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.

Could you please generally describe the current situation... do we not have rights to the fishing and oil as is and what is the policy of other nations towards the Antarctic?

Right now it's terra nullius, meaning that to extract oil and such we need to get specific approval from the International Seabed Authority, pay fees and taxes, get a permit, steps we wouldn't have to take if we simply exercised our right to claim the territory under the Antarctic Treaty.

As for the policy of other nations, seven have made territorial claims to Antarctic sectors. I believe only the Argentine and Chilean sectors are inhabited. Here's a map of current claims:

[Donerail]

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?

Not much there but fish, tourists, and scientists (hydrocarbon and mineral deposits as well, but they're rather small), and this claim would allow us control of the fisheries, a base for our scientists (in a relatively unexplored part of Antarctica), and a place for tourism without the hassle of customs.

As for the territory, the major tourism operator in the region (Azamara Cruises) is based out of the IDS, and fishing ships would find richer and more varied markets sailing back along the Atlantic than the Pacific.

Sorry if this is kinda short, my reply got eaten by session timeout twice already.

[Donerail]

I heard something today about an Australian expedition to rescue a sick American Scientist in Antartica.


Perhaps we should consider building an advanced medical facility down there to deal with such circumstances in our zone.

Ah! That was the other reason it should be part of the IDS: because the IDS currently has a bill in their legislative queue that would expand scientific and medical facilities in this sector if it does become part of Atlasia.

[Donerail]

Mr. SJoyceFla, a constituent of mine has expressed concerns over this legislation.  Would you please provide evidence from the treaty that claiming the territory is legally sound and that the Russians and Brazilians are, in fact, thinking about claiming it first?  On that matter, how one of them claiming it affect our current activities in the Arctic since the treaty already provides our scientists with a legitimate basis for exploration?

This map shows Brazil's proposed "Zone of Interest", which, while not a formal territorial claim, is a designation of their particular interest in that zone of the Antarctic. They, as well as the Russians, have officially declared their reservation of a right to make a territorial claim under the Antarctic Treaty. I cannot find a specific government document in which the right to reserve a claim is specifically spelled out, but we reserved that right when we ratified the Antarctic Treaty. As for how one of them claiming it would affect our current activities, while our scientific explorations would likely be unaffected, our ability to fish in what would be claimed as Russian (or Brazilian) waters would be sharply reduced.

[Donerail]

You guys are prepared to risk ending a decades-long period of stability and international cooperation over fishing rights?

Do you have any proof that this would end a decades-long period of stability and international cooperation? That didn't happen when the British claimed land in 1917, when New Zealand did in 1923, France in 1956, Australia in 1933, Chile in 1961, Norway in 1939, or Argentina in 1904 (bolded are most recent). Why would it happen with us?

[Donerail]

You guys are prepared to risk ending a decades-long period of stability and international cooperation over fishing rights?

Do you have any proof that this would end a decades-long period of stability and international cooperation? That didn't happen when the British claimed land in 1917, when New Zealand did in 1923, France in 1956, Australia in 1933, Chile in 1961, Norway in 1939, or Argentina in 1904 (bolded are most recent). Why would it happen with us?

There's a reason why no further claims have been made during the last sixty years: It would be violation of the Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force in June of 1961. Atlasia, along with the seven nations that you mention, was among the original signatories.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp

A treaty under which we (as well as the Russians) reserved our right to claim a portion of Antarctica.

[Donerail]

I'm aware of our reserved right to claim territory, but it's unclear to me exactly what it means and on what basis we justify excepting ourselves from Article IV. Furthermore, under the other terms of the treaty, our claim would be just as symbolic and impotent as earlier claims made by Chile, France, etc.

It means that if we so wish, we can claim territory below the 60th parallel under Article IV of the Treaty. The treaty says that it specifically isn't a renunciation of our basis of claim to sovereignty (and we certainly have a basis to such); as such, it's legally okay, so under the other terms of the treaty our claim would be just as symbolic and impotent as the current claims of Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Should I open a vote on this SJoyce?

If nobody else has any questions/suggestions for amendments, we can.

[Donerail]

Only five votes? WTF!

If nobody else votes, does it auto-pass?

[Donerail]

CAN WE GET SOME MORE GOD DAMN VOTES ON THIS OR DO WE HAVE TO TKAE A WHOLE DAMN WEEK FOR THIS?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's still 4-4.

[Donerail]

Yankee, it's "Didn't Vote (1):", because we no longer have a Wormyguy in the Senate.


Remember Kal, the official line of the administration is steadfast support for this bill, so don't go against your own administration

[Donerail]

Yankee, it's "Didn't Vote (1):", because we no longer have a Wormyguy in the Senate.

I have my reasons for doing that. He was a still a member when the vote started and thus could have voted right up until he was officially expelled.

Ah. Makes sense.

[Donerail]

This has failed

We're doing it anyway.