right

i agree eezs arent an issue south of s60 except if grant & veridian are correct in projecting them down into there from the south sandwiches or other islands having baselines less than 200nm north of s60

& upon this little if i think hinges our best projection for everyonese irredentism

for if the nations of the world may bite us not only where they said they would but also where they said they wouldnt well then i think we might sue them at the icj & blast our sovereignty into being once & for all since you cant sue there unless you are a country

but peter can you say a little more about biland

for that may prove the choicer morsel in the following text from 3644 if it parses sovereignty a little

m

--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...> wrote:

> Just remember that Norway may claim Peter I Isl. as a "biland" (+/-

> possession), but that it is well inside the Antarctic Treaty area,

> and therefore no different to, say, Queen Maud Land. I don't think

> EEZ's are an issue in the Ant. Treaty area.

>

> Peter S.

>

> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Jan Krogh" <jakro64@y...> wrote:

> > Grant,

> > Thanks for the list. But what about Peter I Isl. (Norway)?

> >

> > Jan