[FPSPACE] Russian Artic "claim"
epgrondine at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 11 10:44:52 EDT 2007
I am sorry I am not more elegant here, but my stroke has left me in a rather
These problems have been festering for years
Consider also closely the state of fish stocks.
In my opinion, the problem here, as with the Antartic( in particular the oil
and minerals), and minerals on the sea bed, is that the logical solution is
These resources could have been placed under UN control used to fund a UN
bank for disaster relief and world economic development purposes.
But of course, the zionists in Israel were/are worried that an effective UN
would/will stop their theft of more Palestinian land.
There are of course other players, and others who would do what they can to
stop such a scheme, but in my view that's the main one. Just ask any US
member of congress. I guarantee they won't answer, until after they retire
I also seem to remember some clauses in the law of the sea regarding
continental shelves. I think that they were placed there for oil. I don't
know if they cover Russia's current activity.
I have this fear that the combination of weapons from science, religion, and
large population densities is going to lead to disaster. At a minimum, a
lot of dead kids. Welcome to hell...
E. P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
>From: Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz <jgabryno at olemiss.edu>
>To: "Alex Michael Bonnici" <albonnici at vol.net.mt>,"FPSPACE"
><fpspace at friends-partners.org>
>Subject: [FPSPACE] Russian "claim"
>Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:03:13 -0500
> No. The legitimacy of a claim is based on a complex mix of
>action, precedent, custom, and responses of nations, as well as what
>is in relevant treaties. Both Canada and the United States promptly
>rejected the claim. Other nations probably have as well, although I
>have not researched this point. Customary law and treaty law
>regarding global commons (high seas, Antarctica, space) have trended
>away from sovereignty claims by occupation, possession, flag
>planting, etc. at least since World War II. Multiple nations have
>left flags on the lunar surface. None of these events are considered
>to have established appropriation of territory.
> Russia has been a State Party to the Law of the Sea
>Convention and its related instruments since 1997.
> The relevant provisions of the Convention state:
>"Part VII, Article89
>Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas
>No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to
>Use of terms and scope
>1. For the purposes of this Convention:
>(1) "Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof,
>beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
>Part X1 Section 2
>Legal status of the Area and its resources
>1. No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights
>over any part of the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or
>natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof. No such
>claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such
>appropriation shall be recognized."
>At 00:57 +0200 05/08/2007, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
> >Does Russia's recent claim to the Arctic seabed automatically mean
> >that all United Nations treaties to date become void? In addition,
> >does Russia's recent stance have any future bearing on how nations
> >will conduct themselves in outer space?
> >FPSPACE mailing list
> >FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>Prof. Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Director
>National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law
>Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Space Law
>The University of Mississippi School of Law
>University, MS 38677-1848
>jgabryno at olemiss.edu
>Voice: (662) 915-6877
>Fax: (662) 915- 6921
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes!
More information about the FPSPACE