Subject: Re: clavoscopy of everyones land advances
Date: Dec 02, 2001 @ 15:13
Author: Grant Hutchison ("Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


Michael:
> now my maps are primitive as usual but there does appear to be at
least one place in the world where the antarctic & maritime regimes
are in conflict so it will make at least a good research & test case
& this is an island or group of unknown name & probably argentine or
chilean ownership in drake passage at about long w70 & lat s58 or in
other words only about 120nm north of lat s60

I've read a fair bit around the topic of sub-Antarctic islands, and
I've never heard of these, or seen them on a map. And they're not in
the right place to be a last dyng echo of the great "lost" islands of
the region, Macy and Swain and the Auroras. Are you looking at some
indication of the Sars Seamount, which sits almost exactly on this
spot, albeit 218m down?
But a while back, in some posting or other, I think I did wonder aloud
(atext?) about whether I should be clipping off the southern extension
of the South Sandwich Islands' EEZ. I hunted down some information
about the Antarctic Treaty at that time, and I think I gathered from
it that it prohibited the creation of maritime zones based on
territorial claims south of 60S - which seemed to leave open the
possibility of maritime zones based on claims *north* of 60S. So I
left the SSI EEZ intact on my map. But all this is now just a vague
impression, and I'd be glad to hear from anyone who can give chapter
and verse.

Grant