Pubic wrote:
mikkel wrote:
It most certainly can not be inferred that an absence of territorial claim constitutes de-facto recognition.
If you want to refute me, you'll have to do better than just disagreeing with me.
You seem to have omitted the lines below, which gave you an exact example of how you're wrong.
Pubic wrote:
Japan has laid no claim to Antarctic land, and it explicitly does not recognise any of the claims. The territory is also not recognised by any other country amongst those which recognise the sovereignty of the claimants over their non-Arctic possessions.
An absence of recognition is non-recognition, and this is further cemented by the enforcement of domestic legislation in Antarctica by certain countries, most notably the United States who maintain a law enforcement presence in Antarctic territory claimed by New Zealand, and enforce U.S. law across all of Antarctica. This would simply not happen in the presence of any form of formal recognition, implicit or explicit, of the claims held by the claimant nations.
So the US enforces domestic US law across all of Antarctica? Pull the other one mate.
You may want to investigate this before writing it off. The U.S. Marshal Service enforces the Antarctic Conservation Act, a provision of United States Code, which is domestic legislation.
Pubic wrote:
The reason they have a facility inside of our territory is because we actually get along pretty well with them, and also for geographical reasons (proximity of suitable airports to antarctica etc). I think Italy also shares that facility.
It is not New Zealand territory as recognised by the United States. Nor is it New Zealand territory as according to Italy, as far as I'm aware. I haven't been able to find a single sovereign nation recognising New Zealand's claim to the territory outside of the other claimants to Antarctic territory.
Pubic wrote:
Most nations don't give a toss about Antarctica, those that do have claimed a slice (or reserved the right to do so). Theres even a fair chunk of it which remains unclaimed. Any country desperate to expand it's borders without a fight could probably stick their flag into that without too much furore, and if any nation was truly concerned about another nation's claim, they could simply dispute it (pulling out of the treaty if necessary). Nations have claimed it, and none outside of the claimants - signatories or otherwise - have disputed it. Seems pretty open and closed to me.
I assume by "treaty" you're referencing the Antarctic Treaty System. I fail to see why any nation would wish to end their membership over a territorial dispute, as the system explicitly does not recognise any territorial claims. The system, in fact, prohibits members from making any new territorial claims.
You start your post by saying that refutation requires more than disagreement, and then go on to do nothing but disagree by voicing vague speculation. This is not very impressive.