<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] FYI
Good evening.
For your information, further to my previous comment to the proposed changes
to the geographical regions, I have sent the attached comment.
Regards
Roberto
------------------------------------------------
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
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|