Norwegian refuses to pay

[DrWatson 379]

This'll be interesting.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/10291142/N ... ctica-fine

 

Do the Norwegians have a rule that prevents people from being in international waters?

 

Or do they just draw a line in international territory/waters and say "If you're Norwegian you can't cross this line without the permission of the govmnt 10000 miles away.

 

I'm not dragging his other indiscretions into this. Just this point.

 

Moreover, does antarctica have borders? 12mile? If so how do you put a border on something which is by definition borderless (international)?

 

Finally, having insurance to sail somewhere inside the territorial waters of a nation I can understand, but being ordered to have insurance in international territory is going a bit far, no?

 

I'm always on the lookout for laws being applied outside of their jurisdiction.

[wheels 543]

I don't understand your questions. Antarctica has a "boundary" around it if that is what you are asking. It is there for it's own protection. Just as the article covers, things like Insurance requirements etc etc. It's a Hostile environment that is also very vulnerable and requires protection.

Re this Norwegian, he can call himself what he likes, but it does not make him above any law. Quite frankly, this idiot should have been locked up long ago. It's a wonder Argentina didn't lock him away and take his Boat. My view is that NZ should have taken his Boat and shoved the guy on the next plane back to Norway. Illegally entering Countries is a serious offence.

But haven't we been through this argument once before???

[DrWatson 379]

I knew you'd be the first one awake

 

My questions are more hypothetical and about setting precedents. Does antarctica have the same 12mile limit that all "Nations" have?

 

If you belong to a country who doesn't have a claim, or your ship is registered in a country that isn't a signatory to the antarctic treaty, are you free to do as you please?

[Farrari 4]

Here is one author that seems to support the Norwegian's defence.

 

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=y6JAr747H60C&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=antarctica+legal+borders&source=bl&ots=TX5ei6HGMo&sig=U9FmrbXFy-nNc5HDpb0SAAyWGJA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EWfNU728C5OTuATCmIHYCg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=antarctica%20legal%20borders&f=false

 

Closing summary excerpt

 

The absence of a clearly recognized coastal sovereign on the continent suggests the lack of legal capacity to designate lawfully recognized zones of offshore jurisdiction—even were they one day to be declared by claimant governments. For the present, and for as long as there is no bona fide coastal sovereign on the continent, circumpolar waters seem most logically to qualify as high seas. Accordingly, maritime activities in waters appurtenant to Antarctica should be governed by rules and regulations applicable to high seas areas.

[wheels 543]

I think the Boundries are pretty clear.

[DrWatson 379]

So for Norwegians it's illegal to sail below 80°S without a "permit"?

 

Do NZrs have such a rule? I'm aware we probably do.

 

Seems a little over-reaching (regardless of the issues with icebergs and practicalities of it).

[Farrari 4]

I think the author of this book is claiming that the presence of a treaty does not equate to a sovereign state that can enforce legal boundaries.

 

It is going to be a hard one for the Norwegian to win given Norway is a member of the treaty. Personally I hope they throw the book at him and lock him up. One way or another it will set a precedent.

 

A sovereign state consists of bordered territory occupied by a permanently

settled population under an effective 'civilized' government. These elements

are absent in Antarctica. There are no recognized borders on the continent.

The sector designations are merely demarcation lines, without tangible

recognized relevance or binding legal quality as boundaries.

[DrWatson 379]

If he renounced his norwegian citizenship and headed down there with his harem of devoted (Ex)Norwegian viking lasses and planted a flag, he'd be fine, I guess.

 

Even more interestingly, if he had dual citzenship, and one was a treaty signatory, and one was not. Who's rules apply to the guy if he is in international zones? Do we just arbitrarily apply the more restrictive of the two rules? Do we bow down to the rules of the country with the biggest guns?

 

Now, some other questions about the the boat. Was it a NZ registered ship? I'm inclined to believe it was not given the way he went about things. And pretty sure it wasn't norwegian registered.

 

Secondly, did NZ throw the book at the NZ activist who accompanied this guy? He went down there without a permit, also.

 

I think he was a dick for going about it the way he did, however.

[Zozza 293]

I would have thought toxic waste either making it's way down to or being left by global corporations, along with illegal commercial fishing, is way more of a concern for Antarctica than some guy that sails down there on a yacht. And yes, I know the Norwegian's history.

[DrWatson 379]

I would have thought toxic waste either making it's way down to or being left by global corporations, along with illegal commercial fishing, is way more of a concern for Antarctica than some guy that sails down there on a yacht. And yes, I know the Norwegian's history.

 

I agree that there are more pressing matters.

 

But of course, it's always easier to pick a fight you can win, regardless of if it's worth fighting for the outcome.

 

Like cracking down on individuals who burn wood to heat their homes cause it's freezing and that's all they can afford, but allowing anyone to drive a car which uses 10 L per km fuel...

[Zozza 293]

I would have thought toxic waste either making it's way down to or being left by global corporations, along with illegal commercial fishing, is way more of a concern for Antarctica than some guy that sails down there on a yacht. And yes, I know the Norwegian's history.

 

I agree that there are more pressing matters.

 

But of course, it's always easier to pick a fight you can win, regardless of if it's worth fighting for the outcome.

 

Like cracking down on individuals who burn wood to heat their homes cause it's freezing and that's all they can afford, but allowing anyone to drive a car which uses 10 L per km fuel...

 

I agree with you Dr Watson. Like his boldness, or abhor his arrogance - what the "crimes" this Norwegian has purported to have committed over the years in his sailing ventures in southern waters, is an insignificant pimple on the proverbial elephants backside compared to damage done by global corporations.

[erice 732]

there is a lot of confusion over the "zones" and boundaries around and on antartica

 

the land areas are basically just "claims" and it suits those there to keep it that way as they don't want to share their claims with china + india for example

 

remember aussie greenpeace complaining of japanese whaling in their "zone"

 

it turned out to be the area that australia had volunteered to be responsible for search + rescue

 

the problem basically is that 100 years ago the southern hemisphere countries nearest it and the 2 or 3 northern hemisphere countries exploring it carved it up by drawing lines from the east - west limits of their lands and then running them down to the geographic pole, (look at the tiny french wedge)

 

Meanwhile, alarmed by these unilateral declarations, the French government laid claim to a strip of the continent in 1924. The basis for their claim to Adélie Land lay on the discovery of the coastline in 1840 by the French explorer Jules Dumont d'Urville, who named it after his wife, Adèle.[62] The British eventually decided to recognize this claim and the border between Adélie Land and Australian Antarctic Territory was fixed definitively in 1938.[63]

 

then after the first world war the americans realised they had missed the boat and refused to recognise the claims. after the 2nd world war so did the russians, the chinese and the indians etc

 

the russians marched down their and built their biggest base, vostok, smack in the middle of the HUGE australian claim, without permission

 

Negotiations towards the establishment of an international condominium over the continent first began in 1948, involving the 7 claimant powers (Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Norway, Chile and Argentina) and the US. This attempt was aimed at excluding the Soviet Union from the affairs of the continent and rapidly fell apart when the USSR declared an interest in the region, refused to recognize any claims of sovereignty and reserved the right to make its own claims in 1950.[79]

 

the americans were a little more friendly and built their biggest base, mc murdo, in nz's claim, only a couple of clicks from nz's scott base and promised to run their deep freeze operation out of chch. where they pump in lots of money every year + it's probably only because the yanks are there that the nz can coat-tail on their infrastructure and run a full year round program on the cheap amounts that are acceptable by the nz tax payer

 

the tasmanians keep trying to get them to move to hobart but even during the worst of anzus they didn't as it would rock the boat over mc murdo being in the nz claim

 

anyway

 

there is a lot of customary use down there, but very little hard law

 

i doubt they can even prove if he landed or not not the satisfaction of a court

 

+ which court would that be?

[DrWatson 379]

Nice edit

 

I'm interested to see how other people's opinions are coloured by their beliefs/upbringings/educations/occupations/historical acquiescence to someone saying "because it is so"...etc etc.

 

International law seems to have about as much power as the calculator I got for Christmas when I was 8, as we've witnessed from recent events. You can have all the international law and UN declarations you like, but at the end of the day if you've got a big gun you do what you want, it seems.

 

Also starting to think this might belong more in small talk.

[erice 732]

antarctic trivia

 

 

Nuclear power 1962-1972[edit]

On March 3, 1962, operators activated a nuclear power plant at the station. The plant, like nearby Scott's Discovery Hut, was prefabricated in modules. Engineers designed the components to weigh no more than 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg) each and to measure no more than 8 ft 8 inches by 8 ft 8 inches by thirty feet. A single core no larger than an oil drum served as the heart of the nuclear reactor. These size and weight restrictions were intended to allow the reactor to be delivered in an LC-130 Hercules aircraft. However, the components were actually delivered by vessel.[4] The reactor generated 1.8 MW of electrical power[5] and reportedly replaced the need for 1,500 US gallons (5,700 L) of oil daily.[6] Engineers applied the reactor's power, for instance, in producing steam for the salt water distillation plant. As a result of continuing safety issues, the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Program decommissioned the plant in 1972. After the nuclear power station was no longer operational, conventional diesel generators were used. There were a number of 500 kW diesel generators located in a central powerhouse providing electric power. A conventionally fueled water desalination plant provided fresh water.