[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]


Further on Geographic Regions
  • To: geo-regions-comments@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Further on Geographic Regions
  • From: R.Gaetano@xxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 20:30:46 +0200

Good evening.
I would like to substantiate my position, expressed already, about keeping
the territories geographically located in a different Region than the mother
country where they are, and not moving them in a different geographic
region.
I would like to call your attention to an international treaty that
indirectly addresses this matter: the treaty of Tlatelolco
(http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm). If you check the
Additional Protocol I
(http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/Tlatelolco-i.htm#35), you will
notice that this engages States that have territories in Latin America and
Caribbean. While the signatories are the States (so far France, the
Netherlands, UK and US, as in
http://www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/status-i.htm) that are, de jure or
de facto, internationally responsible for territories in LAC, the treaty
applies only to said territories, creating a juridical distinction between,
for instance, France (FR) and French Guyane (GF). The residents of the
French Guyane are protected by an international treaty against any direct or
indirect use of nuclear weapons in their territory (including testing or
storage), and this status is different from the one of their colleagues in
Metropolitan France.
All this to say that for international law the common nationality is not a
sufficient reason for lumping together residents of different regions.
As for the second problem, i.e. the question of Antartica, it can be
assigned to AP by redesigning AP to include AQ, but this only with the
agreement of Argentina and Chile. I just incidentally note that, if the same
logic that led to the assignment of GF to Europe had been applied to AQ, the
latter should have been split in the slices of different sovereignity. Of
course with terrible problems, because the slices themselves to not have an
ISO-3166 code. But again, this shows only that the "belonging to a country"
is an attribute and not a property of a territory. On the other hand,
geographical location is a property (assuming we can limit our observation
to few thousand years), and therefore should remain the guiding factor.
Regards
Roberto Gaetano


This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient.
Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be
privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the
intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this
communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this
message and then delete it from your system.


[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy