Subject: Re: Kerguelen and McDonald/Heard _do_ border, EEZ-wise!<br/>
Date: Dec 02, 2001 @ 05:20<br/>
Author: orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)<br/>
<a href="3688.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4860.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic3650.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4839.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4841.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-2119990453">in august 3661 peter s said to grant<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; On another subject: although I think you are doing a wonderful job <br/>
<br/>
&gt; mapping all these 200 nm areas, it still has to be born in mind that <br/>
<br/>
&gt; continental shelf areas can equally be claimed as EEZ. Although these <br/>
<br/>
&gt; EEZ are not quite the same as the 200 nm ones. But as these <br/>
<br/>
&gt; extended &quot;EEZ&quot; areas still have to do with (some sort of) <br/>
<br/>
&gt; sovereignty, it would be interesting to know which countries have <br/>
<br/>
&gt; claimed what areas beyond the 200 nm, and which countries have <br/>
<br/>
&gt; actually concluded treaties amongst themselves (disregarding every <br/>
<br/>
&gt; other nation involved, as it previously was &quot;everyones land&quot;), and <br/>
<br/>
&gt; are now in possession (only recognised by the treaty counterpart, to <br/>
<br/>
&gt; be sure) of a chunk of EEZ outside the 200 nm.<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; I think the case of the North Pole being Danish (or so claims DK) is <br/>
<br/>
&gt; such a case. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>when countries appropriate or exercise sovereign continental shelf rights that were formerly everyonese by law<br/>
<br/>
i believe they are not only disregarding every other nation involved<br/>
<br/>
  whether meaning every other nation in the area or in all the world<br/>
<br/>
but they are also disregarding the sovereign rights of everyone not belonging to any nation involved  or not involved<br/>
<br/>
such as expatriates & exiles  or the unborn & unconceived  everywhere<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
however these same countries have authorized themselves & each other by what is called international law to do precisely this<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
also it may be true that such claims are formally recognized only by treaty counterparts if any  <br/>
<br/>
but isnt it also true that all eez & shelf claims are within the context of & thus an integral part of the united nations law of the sea convention anyway  <br/>
<br/>
& that the claims are thus  if i am not mistaken  submitted to & received by  a united nations registry  & tho never formally validated nor ratified are subject like any other territorial claim to challenge in the international court of justice  etc<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
again i am winging it here  but that is my impression<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& if all the above isnt too far off the beam  then it is just dawning on me too that the danish claim to sovereign shelf rights over or rather under the north pole & beyond must be taken very seriously indeed  not only by canada & russia  with their madcap sector claims of territorial sovereignty as far as the north pole  but especially by everyones land  which claims territorial sovereignty over the entire north pole & the high seas all round it<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
for really what is there to prevent denmark from maintaining the integrity of this claim if it is structurally sound in law & geology<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
m</div>