quote:

Japan is most definitely whaling in Australian waters

Tell that to the United States, the UK, Russia, France, China, India, Brazil, South Africa etc.

They consider these to be international waters.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
Australia may claim those waters.

Australia does claim those waters

quote:

Just as Somalia or Vanuatu or Panama may claim those waters.

Australia has the power to enforce the claim.

quote:

The fact remains that the rest of the world considers them international waters and under the Antarctic treaty these additional EEZ claims are prohibited.

Australia may as well claim the moon. That is prohibited by treaty but Australia could ignore this as they ignore the AT.

Any reasonable person can judge the validity of this claim by the actions of Australia.

Not a single filing to the International Court of Justice.

Not a move to prevent access to the purported EEZ, something every other state does.

If these are Australian waters, then file a motion in the courts to compel the Australian government to enforce their laws.

I totally destroy your legal claims and that's the best you can come up with?!? A petulant rant?!?!?

quote:

Or is Australia little better than Somalia?

Pathetic...

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:

quote:

Japan is most definitely whaling in Australian waters

Tell that to the United States, the UK, Russia, France, China, India, Brazil, South Africa etc.

They consider these to be international waters.

The Australian Court's ruling is all that matters here and it says those are Australian waters.

So according to you the Antarctic Treaty
means nothing.

Read Article 4
The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

The AT supercedes any Austrailian claim since 1959.
International law supercedes Austailia's court ruling.
Austrailia's court even says they CAN"T ENFORCE THEIR CLAIMS.

quote:

The Australian Court's ruling is all that matters here and it says those are Australian waters.

The Australian Court ruling is irrelevant.

Japan could equally cite a ruling of its own courts. They could not be bothered. They do not recognize the jurisdiction of the Australian court. No other countries recognize the jurisdiction of this court.

The ruling was based on an interpretation of national laws that themselves violate International treaty.

The Australian court had no choice. It was the Australian parliament that made that claim in its laws and the court must uphold the laws passed by the parliament.

The old Iraqi parliament passed a law claiming Kuwait. That didn't make it legal, no matter what Iraqi courts said.

Australia has not dared to test this before the International Court of Justice.

Australia has not dared to enforce this using their Coast Guard or Navy. They are ignoring their own laws and the judgments of their own courts. That tells you the worth of this EEZ claim.

Australia lacks the power to enforce its own claims.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...?abstract_id=1380122

Antarctic Whaling: Australia's Attempt to Protect Whales in the Southern Ocean

Donald K. Anton
University of Michigan - Law School; Australian National University - ANU College of Law

quote:

Textually, Article IV(2) has direct bearing on
the legality of Australia’s declaration of an Antarctic EEZ in 1994 and
enforcement of the Australian AWS under the EPBC Act. Specifically,
the treaty prohibits a state from asserting a “new claim, or enlargement
of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica . . . .”133 The
effect “would seem to be that EEZs cannot be claimed off [Antarctic]
territory . . . .”134

quote:

In these cir****tances, it is difficult to characterize the declaration
of an EEZ, in Antarctica or elsewhere, as anything but a claim. The EEZ
did not exist in 1961 when the Antarctic Treaty came into force. Upon
its establishment, it did not automatically attach to a coastal state by
virtue of international law, as may be the case in connection with the
territorial sea141 or the contiguous zone.142 An EEZ is not created ipso
facto, but must be declared. Accordingly, under Article IV(2) of the
Antarctic Treaty it seems clear that the declaration of an EEZ is a
“claim” that is prohibited, provided the other conditions of the Article
are satisfied.

quote:

With the entry into force of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, a legal
bar to EEZ claims was established because such a claim would either
be a new claim or the enlargement of an existing claim.145

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:

quote:

The Australian Court's ruling is all that matters here and it says those are Australian waters.

The Australian Court ruling is irrelevant.

The Australian Court ruling is the only thing that is relevant. It is your argument, which I destroyed, that is irrelevant.

The rest of your "post" was refuted by the Court ruling and is, therefore, meaningless drivel.

By that logic, Kuwait belongs to Iraq.

Iraq, like Australia passed a law in its parliament asserting sovereignty to territory.

Iraq, like Australia, found that no other nation accepted this territorial claim.

Iraqi courts, like Australian ones, upheld these territorial claims.

The Australian judge is in the same position as his Iraqi counterpart, they are obliged to uphold the laws passed by the parliament.

Iraq, unlike Australia, took measures to enforce the territorial claim. The rest is history.

Australia is eminently more sensible. It just ignores the court order.

As does the rest of the world.

As does Japan.

It is simply irrelevant. An illegality under international law. A violation of the Antarctic treaty.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
By that logic, Kuwait belongs to Iraq.

Iraq, like Australia passed a law in its parliament asserting sovereignty to territory.

Iraq, like Australia, found that no other nation accepted this territorial claim.

Iraqi courts, like Australian ones, upheld these territorial claims.

The Australian judge is in the same position as his Iraqi counterpart, they are obliged to uphold the laws passed by the parliament.

Iraq, unlike Australia, took measures to enforce the territorial claim. The rest is history.

Australia is eminently more sensible. It just ignores the court order.

As does the rest of the world.

As does Japan.

It is simply irrelevant. An illegality under international law. A violation of the Antarctic treaty.

Illogical, irrelevant drivel. Pure and simple.

What nation in Antarctica did Australia claim sovereignty over?

It claims a portion of Antarctica itself and in 1994 claimed an extension of its EEZ to include Antarctic waters.

This is a direct violation of the Antarctic treaty. It is an illegal territorial claim.

Just like the Iraqi one.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
It claims a portion of Antarctica itself and in 1994 claimed an extension of its EEZ to include Antarctic waters.

This is a direct violation of the Antarctic treaty. It is an illegal territorial claim.

The Australian Antarctic Territory existed before the ATS and UNCLOS. The concept of territorial waters predates the ATS and UNCLOS. The UNCLOS defined an economic protective zone around a nation and its territories. Just as there is an US EEZ around Guam and Puerto Rico, there is an Australian EEZ around the AAT. It was defined in the UNCLOS at 200 miles.

quote:

Just like the Iraqi one.

Like I told you twice now, the "Iraqi gambit" fails miserably. It was a non-sequitur when you first tried it and it is still a non-sequitur. I'll ask you the same question a third time: Over which nation in Antarctica did Australia claim sovereignty?

quote:

Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

Australia, as a signatory, cannot establish territorial sovereignty. Nothing is as clear as this. It can CLAIM sovereignty, but cannot establish it.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

Australia, as a signatory, cannot establish territorial sovereignty. Nothing is as clear as this. It can CLAIM sovereignty, but cannot establish it.

Irrelevant. The AAT existed before the ATS.

Quote:
Irrelevant. The AAT existed before the ATS.
______________________________________________

Articles of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959

Article 1 - area to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited, but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;

Article 2 - freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation shall continue;

Article 3 - free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;

Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;

Article 5 - prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;

Article 6 - includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;

Article 7 - treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;

Article 8 - allows for jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;

Article 9 - frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;

Article 10 - treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;

Article 11 - disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;

Articles 12, 13, 14 - deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.
The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. The treaty forbids any measures of a military nature, but not the presence of military personnel.

The Australian Whale Sanctuary
is a non-contiguous area overlapping Australian territorial waters.

It was established in 1999 to protect dolphins and whales from hunting.[1] The zone includes the country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which is the area 200 nautical miles (370 km) surrounding the continent of Australia and its external dependencies such as Christmas Island (in the Indian Ocean), Cocos (Keeling) Island, Norfolk Island, Heard Island and Macdonald Island. It also includes the EEZ around the Australian Antarctic Territory, but this is not recognised by all countries.

Origin of EEZ
This concept of allotting nations EEZs to give better control of maritime affairs outside territorial limits gained acceptance in the late 20th century and was given binding international recognition by the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982.

Part V, Article 55 of the Convention states:

Specific legal regime of the Exclusive Economic Zone
The Exclusive Economic Zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention.

Now the last time I checked 1959 precedes 1982.
But perhaps not in your world.
You are a LIAR!

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Quote:
Irrelevant. The AAT existed before the ATS.
______________________________________________

Articles of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959

I have a copy of the ATS bookmarked.

quote:

The Australian Whale Sanctuary
is a non-contiguous area overlapping Australian territorial waters.

It was established in 1999 to protect dolphins and whales from hunting.[1] The zone includes the country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which is the area 200 nautical miles (370 km) surrounding the continent of Australia and its external dependencies such as Christmas Island (in the Indian Ocean), Cocos (Keeling) Island, Norfolk Island, Heard Island and Macdonald Island. It also includes the EEZ around the Australian Antarctic Territory, but this is not recognised by all countries.

Many claims by one country are not recognized by another. So what? The court ruling is on the books. The law (EPBC) is on the books.

quote:

Origin of EEZ
This concept of allotting nations EEZs to give better control of maritime affairs outside territorial limits gained acceptance in the late 20th century and was given binding international recognition by the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982.

Part V, Article 55 of the Convention states:

Specific legal regime of the Exclusive Economic Zone
The Exclusive Economic Zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention.

To wit: A 200 mile AAT EEZ.

quote:

Now the last time I checked 1959 precedes 1982.
But perhaps not in your world.

The AAT was established decades prior to 1959:

quote:

Victoria Land was first claimed for Britain on 9 January 1841 and Britain claimed Enderby Land in 1930. In 1933, a British imperial order transferred territory south of 60° S and between meridians 160° E and 45° E to Australia.

Now the last time I checked 1933 precedes 1959.
But perhaps not in your world.

quote:

You are a LIAR!

Just can't resist the puerile and irrelevant statements can you?

Yes it has been around longer than that and
1959 was one reference point. Article 4 still applies then since the EEZ didn't happen until 1982.
Thank you for helping make my point!

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Yes it has been around longer than that and
1959 was one reference point. Article 4 still applies then since the EEZ didn't happen until 1982.
Thank you for helping make my point!

Under Australian law and the ruling of the Australian Federal Court against the Japanese whaling industry, your point is irrelevant.

Global or International Law supercedes any local, state or countries laws or rulings when it comes down to determining weather or not a claim by one country should be recognized by the world.
Anything you say contrary to that is irrelevant and wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Global or International Law supercedes any local, state or countries laws or rulings when it comes down to determining weather or not a claim by one country should be recognized by the world.
Anything you say contrary to that is irrelevant and wrong.

Tell that to Australia. I'd love to watch them laugh you out of the southern hemisphere.

quote:

Tell that to Australia. I'd love to watch them laugh you out of the southern hemisphere.

It is the Japanese who laugh at the Australians and continue their whaling operations.

The Australians don't laugh, they don't dare touch a whaling ship.

I'll make you a bet. If next season Australia attempts to seize a Japanese whaling vessel I will make a donation to the SSCS.

If Australia doesn't, you donate to the ICR.

We'll see how worthless (or not) that Allsop judgement is.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:

quote:

Tell that to Australia. I'd love to watch them laugh you out of the southern hemisphere.

It is the Japanese who laugh at the Australians and continue their whaling operations.

...to their growing peril.

quote:

The Australians don't laugh, they don't dare touch a whaling ship.

We'll see...

quote:

I'll make you a bet. If next season Australia attempts to seize a Japanese whaling vessel I will make a donation to the SSCS.

If Australia doesn't, you donate to the ICR.

What an idiotic and childish challenge... Run out of arguments?

quote:

We'll see how worthless (or not) that Allsop judgement is.

I'm assuming you mean the Jan 2008 ruling. It's still in effect. Nobody's overturned it.