They are no more Australian waters than they are mine, they are international waters.

If they are poaching as you keep trying to claim why doesn't the Aussies stop them?????

I really don't think there would be many protests in Japan if they wanted to change the law so they could send the JMSDF down to protect hard working Japanese sailors

quote:

Originally posted by Whale hunter:
They are no more Australian waters than they are mine, they are international waters.

Wrong. Australian territory includes a large part of Antarctica. It's called the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends out to 200 miles from all Australian territories including the Antarctic continent. Here is a map of the territory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...erritorial_claim.svg

quote:

If they are poaching as you keep trying to claim why doesn't the Aussies stop them?????

I'm not claiming anything. I am stating a fact. The AAT exists. The EEZ off the AAT exists. If you hunt or fish in another country's EEZ without their permission, it's poaching. Period.

I believe the Aussies are trying to stop them. Diplomatically. I also believe (and this is only speculation on my part) the Australian Navy/Coast Guard is being kept out of it because of a sense of fair play. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution prohibits the use of the JSDF to settle international disputes. It may have to go to the ICJ but I'm hoping they come to a settlement where no more whales are poached in Australian waters.

quote:

I really don't think there would be many protests in Japan if they wanted to change the law so they could send the JMSDF down to protect hard working Japanese sailors

Not hard working sailors, poachers. The Japanese government would lose a lot of face attempting to protect criminal activities.

It's not the law that would need to be changed, it's the Constitution of Japan. It's modelled after the US Constitution in that any constitutional amendment must pass both houses of the Diet by a two-thirds majority. It must then pass a referendum by a simple majority.

There is a move to change Article 9, paragraph 2 to create a defense force with relaxed restrictions on participating in international activities such as peace keeping and anti-piracy activities but maintaining the prohibitions against force to settle international disputes:

quote:

First paragraph of Article 9, renouncing war, is retained. The second paragraph, forbidding the maintenance of "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential" is replaced by an Article 9-2 which permits a "defence force", under control of the Prime Minister, which defends the nation and may participate in international activities.

Since the whalers' poaching is an international dispute between Australia and Japan, the JMSDF would still be powerless to act.

As for not many protests in Japan:

quote:

The debate has been highly polarized. The most controversial issues are proposed changes to Article 9, the "peace article" and provisions relating to the role of the Emperor. Progressive, left, center-left and peace movement related individuals and organizations, as well as the opposition parties, labor and youth groups advocate keeping (and even strengthening) the existing constitution in these areas, while right-leaning, nationalist and/or conservative groups and individuals advocate changes to increase the prestige of the Emperor (though not granting him political powers) and to allow a more aggressive stance of the self-defense force, e.g. by turning it officially into a military.

The full article (with references) I quoted from can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...dments_and_revisions

That should keep us talking for a while...

quote:

Wrong. Australian territory includes a large part of Antarctica. It's called the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT).

And I cannot believe how many times I have to point out that AAT is an illegal claim. Australia, as a signatory of ATS, has no right to territorize any part of Antarctica.

ATS 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;

Oh God!!! Not this crap again! I thought we were past this......

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

Wrong. Australian territory includes a large part of Antarctica. It's called the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT).

And I cannot believe how many times I have to point out that AAT is an illegal claim. Australia, as a signatory of ATS, has no right to territorize any part of Antarctica.

Wrong. Read your own quote from the ATS Article 4:

quote:

ATS 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;

I highlighted the appropriate part you need to recognize as a valid part of Article 4. The treaty does not dispute Australia's pre-treaty claim. The claim is not illegal. You are wrong.

Oh, you might be interested in Article 6:

quote:

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

It says nothing about the waters surrounding Antarctica. Only the land masses and ice shelves. The EEZ exists and is legal under UNCLOS and does not violate the ATS because it is not part of the land masses and ice shelves covered by the ATS.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Oh God!!! Not this crap again! I thought we were past this......

Sigh... I guess not.

Hope you're having a good one.

quote:

Originally posted by nbrownfzi:

quote:

Originally posted by Whale hunter:
As Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan prohibits Japan from using military force except in self-defense. If law abiding Japanese workers are being attacked in international waters then sending the JMSDF down with them would be considerd self defence or a peace keeping mission which they are also allowed to do, hence why Japanese troops were deployed to Iraq.

Read the entire article especially the bold part:

quote:

ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Poaching in Australian waters qualifies as an international dispute not a peacekeeping mission. JSDF are not allowed to act.

Japanese forces can be (and have been) deployed outside of Japan only when a law is passed and the deployment is for a limited time and peaceful purposes only. Japan deployed forces to Iraq for humanitarian purposes only and there were protests in Japan over that.

Just as your signature says...
http://world.globaltimes.cn/in.../2009-06/438436.html

The PM can now dispatch JMSDF at their liking to combat piracy, and even open fire if pirates don't heed warnings to not approach protected ships. He can do this without consulting the Diet.

Australias EEZ does not apply to the Antarctic waters being discussed. Only Britain, France, NZ, Norway recognize that claim.
Even Australia recognizes they have no ability to prosecute ships in those waters. Even Watson in his South Park essay recognizes Australia recognizing they have no jurisdiction.

quote:

Originally posted by Ueda Jiro:

quote:

Originally posted by nbrownfzi:

quote:

Originally posted by Whale hunter:
As Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan prohibits Japan from using military force except in self-defense. If law abiding Japanese workers are being attacked in international waters then sending the JMSDF down with them would be considerd self defence or a peace keeping mission which they are also allowed to do, hence why Japanese troops were deployed to Iraq.

Read the entire article especially the bold part:

quote:

ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Poaching in Australian waters qualifies as an international dispute not a peacekeeping mission. JSDF are not allowed to act.

Japanese forces can be (and have been) deployed outside of Japan only when a law is passed and the deployment is for a limited time and peaceful purposes only. Japan deployed forces to Iraq for humanitarian purposes only and there were protests in Japan over that.

Just as your signature says...
http://world.globaltimes.cn/in.../2009-06/438436.html

The rest of your post misquoting the above article is where my signature stands out:

quote:

The PM can now dispatch JMSDF at their liking to combat piracy, and even open fire if pirates don't heed warnings to not approach protected ships. He can do this without consulting the Diet.

Off Somalia. Period. The law is restricted to that action only. Go back and re-read the article then go back and read my signature 'dozo'.

quote:

Australia's EEZ does not apply to the Antarctic waters being discussed. Only Britain, France, NZ, Norway recognize that claim.

What you or Japan choose to recognize regarding Australia's EEZ is irrelevant. The Australian EEZ (which is allowed under the UNCLOS and does not violate the ATS) exists around their Antarctic claim. Bank robbers, murderers, rapists, and burglars choose not to recognize the laws against their actions. The poachers have chosen not to recognize the laws against their actions. (Read my signature again 'dozo')

quote:

Even Australia recognizes they have no ability to prosecute ships in those waters.

No such statement exists. (Your post is why I use the quote from Mark Twain as my signature.)

quote:

Even Watson in his South Park essay recognizes Australia recognizing they have no jurisdiction.

No he didn't. (Read my signature again 'dozo')

Here is the ONLY part where he mentions jurisdiction:

quote:

It would have helped if the Australian Federal police had done a forensic analysis of the bullet but they refused to look at it, using the excuse that they did not have jurisdiction.

That in no way supports your statement (read my signature again 'dozo'). Nor was it about defending the EEZ from the poaching, that was about Paul Watson being shot. The AFP only investigates crime in Australia proper. The proper authorities to investigate would have been the Australian Coast Guard. Just because the ACG didn't investigate, that implies nothing in the way of their having or not having jursdiction.

This is an international dispute between Japan and Australia and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (as quoted above) renders the JMSDF impotent to act.

My signature:

quote:

Originally posted by nbrownfzi:

quote:

Originally posted by Ueda Jiro:
Just as your signature says...
http://world.globaltimes.cn/in.../2009-06/438436.html

The rest of your post misquoting the above article is where my signature stands out:

quote:

The PM can now dispatch JMSDF at their liking to combat piracy, and even open fire if pirates don't heed warnings to not approach protected ships. He can do this without consulting the Diet.

Off Somalia. Period. The law is restricted to that action only. Go back and re-read the article then go back and read my signature 'dozo'.

Go back and reread the article yourself. It gives full power to the PM. The Chinese are flipping out about it.
Even when I break it down for you, you're still oblivious.

quote:

quote:

Australia's EEZ does not apply to the Antarctic waters being discussed. Only Britain, France, NZ, Norway recognize that claim.

What you or Japan choose to recognize regarding Australia's EEZ is irrelevant. The Australian EEZ (which is allowed under the UNCLOS and does not violate the ATS) exists around their Antarctic claim. Bank robbers, murderers, rapists, and burglars choose not to recognize the laws against their actions. The poachers have chosen not to recognize the laws against their actions. (Read my signature again 'dozo')

Actually what Japan recognizes is relevant precisely because they are flagged.
If it was any different, why did Oceanic Viking do nothing? That's right, because they know they have no jurisdiction to enforce anything.

quote:

quote:

Even Australia recognizes they have no ability to prosecute ships in those waters.

No such statement exists. (Your post is why I use the quote from Mark Twain as my signature.)

Justice James Alsop disagrees:
The judge acknowleged that "Australia's claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised only by four nations (New Zealand, France, Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves with asserted (and otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land mass."

quote:

quote:

Even Watson in his South Park essay recognizes Australia recognizing they have no jurisdiction.

No he didn't. (Read my signature again 'dozo')

Here is the ONLY part where he mentions jurisdiction:

quote:

It would have helped if the Australian Federal police had done a forensic analysis of the bullet but they refused to look at it, using the excuse that they did not have jurisdiction.

That in no way supports your statement (read my signature again 'dozo'). Nor was it about defending the EEZ from the poaching, that was about Paul Watson being shot. The AFP only investigates crime in Australia proper. The proper authorities to investigate would have been the Australian Coast Guard. Just because the ACG didn't investigate, that implies nothing in the way of their having or not having jursdiction.

Oh right, so I'm sure the AFP didn't tell him who the proper authority would have been to analyze the mythical bullet.
Or Watson is just caught in another lie, and at the same time betrays what we all know: Australia has no jurisdiction in the SO.

quote:

This is an international dispute between Japan and Australia and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (as quoted above) renders the JMSDF impotent to act.

My signature:

Keeepp on beelieving. I gotttt a feeeling... that you're willfully ignoraaannnt.

"The law stipulates that if the defense ministry recognize the threat of piracy is beyond the capacity of the Coast Guard, the Prime Minister will be authorized to order the dispatch of the SDF. This means that as long as the threat of piracy occurred overseas, the Japanese government is entitled to dispatch SDF at all times, while the Diet is largely left ignored."

quote:

ATS 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;

I highlighted the appropriate part you need to recognize as a valid part of Article 4. The treaty does not dispute Australia's pre-treaty claim. The claim is not illegal. You are wrong.

Oh, God...Article 4 does not say what you say it does. "does not recognize, dispute, establish" applies to all territorial sovereigty claims, because the italicized is the object of the verbs, recognize, dispute, establish. The use of ";" after the word claims means that a new sentence begins, which you ignore.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

ATS 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;

I highlighted the appropriate part you need to recognize as a valid part of Article 4. The treaty does not dispute Australia's pre-treaty claim. The claim is not illegal. You are wrong.

Oh, God...Article 4 does not say what you say it does. "does not recognize, dispute, establish" applies to all territorial sovereigty claims, because the italicized is the object of the verbs, recognize, dispute, establish.

Yes. It does. The commas between recognize, dispute, and establish imply the following:

"the treaty does not recognize territorial sovereignty claims, does not dispute territorial sovereignty claims, and does not establish territorial sovereignty claims;"

Period. Might I recommend you take a course in remedial EnglisH?

quote:

The use of ";" after the word claims means that a new sentence begins, which you ignore.

Your "semicolon gambit" is irrelevant. The new sentence is:

"no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;"

No new claims have been assserted within the ATS by any of the signatories. That does not prevent territorial claims by non-signatories by the way. I did not ignore the sentence. It does not apply.

Article 6 of the ATS states: "includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;" All land and ice shelves. The surrounding waters are not included in the ATS. Icebergs and ice floes are also not included because the definition of an ice shelf is ice attached to land. Just thought I'd head that gambit off before you tried (unsuccessfully) to use it. Save you some embarrassment, as it were.

What gambit will you (unsuccessfully) try now...

quote:

Originally posted by Ueda Jiro:

quote:

Originally posted by nbrownfzi:

quote:

Originally posted by Ueda Jiro:
Just as your signature says...
http://world.globaltimes.cn/in.../2009-06/438436.html

The rest of your post misquoting the above article is where my signature stands out:

quote:

The PM can now dispatch JMSDF at their liking to combat piracy, and even open fire if pirates don't heed warnings to not approach protected ships. He can do this without consulting the Diet.

Off Somalia. Period. The law is restricted to that action only. Go back and re-read the article then go back and read my signature 'dozo'.

Go back and reread the article yourself. It gives full power to the PM. The Chinese are flipping out about it.
Even when I break it down for you, you're still oblivious.

Let me break it down for you. The article neither describes nor does the law give such power in the southern Ocean to Hatoyama-san. The first two paragraphs read:

"Japan's powerful House of Representatives on Friday passed through a second vote an antipiracy law enabling the expansion of Self-Defense Forces' mission in waters off pirates-infested Somalia.

Compared with the existing provisions, the law featured relaxed restrictions on use of weaponry and objects of protection. The new law is expected to take effect in late July, according to government officials."

Further down in the article it reads:

"The new antipiracy law, which expanded the Self-Defense Forces (SDF)'s protection mission to any commercial ship from pirates regardless of a Japanese connection, and allows Japan's destroyers to fire at pirates in case of they ignore repeated warnings and deemed as dangerous, provides opportunity to amplifying Japan's role in solving the pirate problem off Somalia."

Like I said in my previous post, it is limited to the area around Somalia. Period.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Australia's EEZ does not apply to the Antarctic waters being discussed. Only Britain, France, NZ, Norway recognize that claim.

What you or Japan choose to recognize regarding Australia's EEZ is irrelevant. The Australian EEZ (which is allowed under the UNCLOS and does not violate the ATS) exists around their Antarctic claim. Bank robbers, murderers, rapists, and burglars choose not to recognize the laws against their actions. The poachers have chosen not to recognize the laws against their actions. (Read my signature again 'dozo')

Actually what Japan recognizes is relevant precisely because they are flagged.
If it was any different, why did Oceanic Viking do nothing? That's right, because they know they have no jurisdiction to enforce anything.

Inaction does not deny jurisdiction. It only implies inaction. Period.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Even Australia recognizes they have no ability to prosecute ships in those waters.

No such statement exists. (Your post is why I use the quote from Mark Twain as my signature.)

Justice James Alsop disagrees:
The judge acknowleged that "Australia's claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised only by four nations (New Zealand, France, Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves with asserted (and otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land mass."

That is what Justice Allsop wrote in his May 2005 ruling which was overturned in January 2008 by the full Australian Federal Court. Please make sure you use the current rulings in the future. Attempting to use an overturned ruling to back your claim is as good as a lie. Here is the final ruling:

http://hsi.org.au/editor/asset...ment_15_Jan_2008.pdf

quote:

quote:

Even Watson in his South Park essay recognizes Australia recognizing they have no jurisdiction.

No he didn't. (Read my signature again 'dozo')

Here is the ONLY part where he mentions jurisdiction:

quote:

It would have helped if the Australian Federal police had done a forensic analysis of the bullet but they refused to look at it, using the excuse that they did not have jurisdiction.

That in no way supports your statement (read my signature again 'dozo'). Nor was it about defending the EEZ from the poaching, that was about Paul Watson being shot. The AFP only investigates crime in Australia proper. The proper authorities to investigate would have been the Australian Coast Guard. Just because the ACG didn't investigate, that implies nothing in the way of their having or not having jursdiction.

Oh right, so I'm sure the AFP didn't tell him who the proper authority would have been to analyze the mythical bullet.
Or Watson is just caught in another lie, and at the same time betrays what we all know: Australia has no jurisdiction in the SO.[/QUOTE]

Calling Paul Watson a liar after your failed attempt to use an overturned ruling as fact is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.

I say again: The Australian EEZ exists. The poachers were ordered to stop whaling in the EEZ. They ignored it. Ignorance of the laws of a nation and continuing to poach within its territory is a criminal act.

quote:

This is an international dispute between Japan and Australia and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (as quoted above) renders the JMSDF impotent to act.

My signature:

quote:

Keeepp on beelieving. I gotttt a feeeling... that you're willfully ignoraaannnt.

It appears I'm more up to date on the situation than you are. I read the whole article about the law. Including the part restricting operations to the area around Somalia. I also read Article 9 of Japan's Constitution. It expressly forbids the deployment of the JMSDF to settle international disputes. I knew that Justice Allsop's May 2005 ruling was overturned in January 2008. You willfully ignored it. And that's not a "feeeling...", that's a fact.

By the way you can edit your posts to correct the apparent keyboard problem you had in the above statement.

quote:

"The law stipulates that if the defense ministry recognize the threat of piracy is beyond the capacity of the Coast Guard, the Prime Minister will be authorized to order the dispatch of the SDF. This means that as long as the threat of piracy occurred overseas, the Japanese government is entitled to dispatch SDF at all times, while the Diet is largely left ignored."

The law stipulates operations are limited to the area around Somalia. Period. Any attempt to send the JMSDF anywhere else is a violation of Article 9 of Japan's Consititution. The Diet is fully aware of this. The Chinese are attempting a different spin ("flipping out" as you said) in this article to summon up worry about Japan's intentions. Ergo, the paragraph about so-called "hidden content". That is pure speculation on the part of the writer with no basis in the law or in fact.

The JMSDF is still powerless to act in the southern ocean. Especially in Australia's territorial waters.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nbrownfzi,

1. ICR are not poachers. They are whaling completely within IWC regulations. Just because you WISH that wasn't the case, doesn't make it so.

2. The law was wrote with Somalia in mind -- nobody is disputing that. Because they had Somalia in mind does not mean it is restricted to Somalia. This has been pointed out to you twice.
This is like saying Patriot Act ONLY applies to terrorists because that's who they had in mind when they passed it.
Too bad that's not reality.
Continuing to bring up the non-military aspects aren't valid. Do you know why? Because this is about PIRACY. Not MILITARY. Specifically, the law assigns anti-piracy to JCG. But this is where it gets fun, because the new law clearly lets the PM deploy JMSDF if the Defense Ministry decides the PIRACY is too much for JCG to handle.
You might even say... it's a loophole. I'm sure you know all about those.

3. Watson himself advises people to lie. If you believe he was actually shot, you need to put the koolaid down.
http://www.newyorker.com/repor...ourian?currentPage=8

4. Australia's claim to Antarctic waters is impotent. I've already shown you...
- Watson claims Australia won't look at "bullet" because it's not their jurisdiction
- The Judge that ruled against ICR admitted it has no teeth and is not enforceable.
- It's NOT an international incident because Australia and Japan have both signed Antaractic Treaty System -- meaning Australias claimed extended EEZ from Antarctica = international waters for all intents and purposes.
- Oceanic Viking goes down to "observe" ICR... does nothing.
- Australian PM says he's going to stop ICR. Now that he's in office he seems to have realized his country has no justifiable claim to those waters.

PLEASE, show me. What has Australia ever physically done to verify those are actually their waters?
If they were, Oceanic Viking would have confronted them years ago. They didn't. Do you know why? Because they have no jurisdiction.

Deny it all you want and try to spin ATS to mean the exact opposite of what it means. But the reality is that Australias claim to Antarctic waters is not recognized and there is a very simple reason they have never driven ICR out: because they know they don't have jurisdiction.

quote:

Yes. It does. The commas between recognize, dispute, and establish imply the following:

"the treaty does not recognize territorial sovereignty claims, does not dispute territorial sovereignty claims, and does not establish territorial sovereignty claims;"

Period.

So, Australia, as a signatory to the ATS, cannot establish territorial sovereignty claims. It is as simple as that.

If you have more English sentences that you are finding difficult to comprehend, I can help you.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

Yes. It does. The commas between recognize, dispute, and establish imply the following:

"the treaty does not recognize territorial sovereignty claims, does not dispute territorial sovereignty claims, and does not establish territorial sovereignty claims;"

Period.

So, Australia, as a signatory to the ATS, cannot establish territorial sovereignty claims. It is as simple as that.

The Australia Antarctic Territory (AAT) has existed since 1933.

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) went in to effect June 1961.

Australia did not renounce her pre-existing claim nor was she required to under the ATS.

The territory belongs to Australia. Period.

The ATS does not dispute the claim. Period.

The ATS does not apply to surrounding waters. Period.

It is a simple as that.

quote:

If you have more English sentences that you are finding difficult to comprehend, I can help you.

As you can see, I do undstand what is written about the AAT and the ATS. I neither need nor desire help from you in the English language area specially since you got it wrong in the first place. English is my native tongue.

Utterly nonsense. Australian signature on ATS means that the country cannot establish territorial sovereignty claims. They have no right whatsoever to say: "oh, by the way, we have claimed this bid of the continent before we signed, so the land is ours."

And, SSCS has nothing to do with Australian government.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:
Utterly nonsense.

It's "utter" not "utterly". I still recommend that course in remedial english to you.

quote:

Australian signature on ATS means that the country cannot establish territorial sovereignty claims.

It means they agree to not establish any new claims. Australia hasn't.

quote:

They have no right whatsoever to say: "oh, by the way, we have claimed this bid of the continent before we signed, so the land is ours."

They have no need to. The ATS does not dispute any existing claims. That is the part of article 4 you can't seem to understand.

quote:

And, SSCS has nothing to do with Australian government.

Under Australia's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) the Sea Shepherds are considered an interested person and, as such, are permitted to act in the Australian EEZ under Australian law.

quote:

They have no need to. The ATS does not dispute any existing claims. That is the part of article 4 you can't seem to understand.

Where does it say "existing" claim?

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;

Right, I can't seem to find the word "existing."

quote:

Under Australia's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) the Sea Shepherds are considered an interested person and, as such, are permitted to act in the Australian EEZ under Australian law.

Considered by whom? And does this law allow SSCS to use violence outside the AU territory?

quote:

The AAT was in existance when the ATS went into effect. Period.

It was an existing claim. Period.

and the "existing" AAT was effectively put in abeyance when they signed AAT.

quote:

Since the page is rather long, here is the link:

I cannot locate the word "Sea Shepherd" in this document.

quote:

UN World Charter for Nature is in force

So, you are saying that it is not AUS territory after all. UNWCN does not say anything about use of violence.

I know that it is hard to justify a criminal organisation like SS, because it is impossible to justify them, but your twisted interpretation is simply amusing.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

They have no need to. The ATS does not dispute any existing claims. That is the part of article 4 you can't seem to understand.

Where does it say "existing" claim?'

The AAT was in existance when the ATS went into effect. Period.

It was an existing claim. Period.

Australia was not required to renounce the claim when they signed the ATS. Period.

The ATS does not dispute the claim. Period.

You really need that remedial english course. Exclamation point.

quote:

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;

Right, I can't seem to find the word "existing."

You're repeating yourself... I think you're losing it.

quote:

quote:

Under Australia's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) the Sea Shepherds are considered an interested person and, as such, are permitted to act in the Australian EEZ under Australian law.

Considered by whom?

Considered by Australia. They wrote the law establishing the concept of an "interested person". Here's a quick outline of the appriate part of the act:

CHAPTER 6--Administration
PART 17--ENFORCEMENT
Division 14--Injunctions
Section 475. Injunctions for contravention of the Act.
Paragraphs (6) and (7)

Since the page is rather long, here is the link:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/l...bca1999588/s475.html

The outline of the entire act can be found here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/l...l_act/epabca1999588/

quote:

And does this law allow SSCS to use violence outside the AU territory?

No, Paragraph 24 of UN World Charter for Nature covers their action outside the Australian EEZ:

quote:

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.