Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 December 5

= December 5 =

Who owns Antarctica? Who owns the planets?
I have a question about international treaties. I have read somewhere that the continent of Antarctica is not "owned" by any nation and, further, that nations have agreed that no one nation can lay claim to that land. In other words, the land of Antarctica really doesn't belong to any nation; no nation owns it. I think that I also read the same thing about the planets. That is, nations have agreed that no one nation can lay claim to any of the planets and that no one nation can "own" a planet. That is what I have understood to be the case (although I may be wrong). So, I assume that various nations have entered into some agreement or treaty or pact (or whatever) to make this happen. My question is: what if there is a country out there that has decided not to sign this agreement? Let's say, for example, that Brazil (just as a hypothetical example) has decided to not sign these agreements. Does Brazil have a right to lay claim of ownership to Antarctica and/or to the planets? If they (Brazil) did not sign the agreements, they should not be bound by what other parties (other nations) have agreed to. Right? How does this work? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:6CC2:1D1C:D0F0:9193 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And, while we are at it, who owns the oceans, rivers, seas, lakes, etc.? Thanks.  2602:252:D13:6D70:6CC2:1D1C:D0F0:9193 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The high seas: Nobody.
 * All other water: One country or another has at least some ownership-like rights (i.e. exclusive economic zone).
 * The entire universe above 100 kilometers from sea level: Nobody.
 * Antarctica: all claims are suspended
 * Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I converted the above to a bullet list for legibility.
 * To amplify the point about "other water":
 * Rivers and lakes (including inland "seas") are just like land. Water surrounded by one country's land is part of that country (it doesn't have to be, but in practice it always is); water that has different countries along its shores has boundaries drawn within it (or along the shores), or as you see here or here or here.
 * Ocean water that's close to land is typically claimed by the nearest country, but it's complicated, with different levels of control. See territorial waters.
 * --76.69.45.64 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ownership is a social construct. The question is who is prepare to defend the territory with their arm forces lives and who is prepare to sacrifice 10000 of their troops to do so? 110.22.20.252 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I am following up on my original question. When asked "who owns these things?", some of the answers above are "nobody owns these things".  OK.  But who says so?  Who is the authority over these things (for example, the high seas) and who gives that person the authority to say: "According to me, nobody is allowed to own the high seas."?  And, again, back to my original question: if some "rogue" country decides not to sign these agreements, is the country bound to them, nonetheless?  And why would they be bound if they decide not to sign?  Also, nobody touched on the ownership of the planets, space, stars, etc.  Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:6CC2:1D1C:D0F0:9193 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * On the last point, read Sagittarian's answer again, the third item. As to the rest, there is no authority except to the extent there are treaties, and countries are not bound.  However, if they start claiming things that other countries say nobody should claim, they may find themselves in conflict with the armed forces of those other countries.  --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Contrary to the statement above, the rich recently took the asteroids for themselves . I don't know if they are supposed to literally send a micro-probe as proof-of-work to turn an asteroid into a Bitcoin, or if they can just eye it through a big telescope to begin 'exploration'; I assume the lawyers will work it out where whichever has the most money wins.  Everything is the property of whoever can take it by force, and opportunity itself is property of the rich. Wnt (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But this is not a rule. It is just a fact of life, as raw and basic as it works amongst primitive animals. The international rules precisely try to rule the facts of raw life in order to introduce more justice, more fairness, and less "law of the strongest", less "Law of the jungle". Akseli9 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also: Accomplishing the awesome exploit of reaching an asteroïd and landing a robot on it, doesn't make you the owner of the asteroïd, just like reaching the summit of Mount Everest doesn't make you the owner of this mountain. Amongst mountaineers in general, and professional famous alpinists in particular, there is a widespread common sense that "nobody owns the mountain", although of course they take into account that the mountains have to be reached by complying to the local rules of the countries where the mountain is. Akseli9 (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend our article Moon treaty for some insights into this aspect of international law. I supported this treaty in the late 1970s though many space activists in the US opposed it and they succeeded in preventing the US from endorsing it. The bottom line is that this area of international law has great areas of unclarity. As for mountains, no one disputes that the United States controls the summit of Denali, or that the summit of Mount Everest is jointly controlled by Nepal and the People's Republic of China. Though I have been a mountaineer for 40 years, I am not aware that the "nobody owns the mountain" meme is common among climbers. There is a big difference between ownership, which rarely applies to high mountain peaks, and sovereignty, which almost always does. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Moon Treaty (and similar treaties) are exactly what I was referring to. The treaty can say anything that it wants.  But, I assume, it only applies to nations who are "on board" with the ideas (that is, those who actually sign the treaty).  The rules and restrictions in an international treaty, I assume, do not apply to those nations who haven't signed (agreed to) the treaty.  That's the rub.  2602:252:D13:6D70:BD83:3784:351:F8B4 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the OP should have asked "who has sovereignty on Antarctica and on the planets"? Akseli9 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, "sovereignty" is probably a better term than "ownership". I agree. 2602:252:D13:6D70:BD83:3784:351:F8B4 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As for space... Forget what the treaties say... The Moon is clearly part of the US. Even if we ignore the faded American flag flying by the front door... there isa rusty old abandoned car sitting in the driveway! ... you can't get much more American than that! Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Who 'owns' Antarctica? 'Owns' is an interesting concept. What do you want to do at the physical location? Mine for minerals? Not allowed and it will be enforced. Go and set up camp on the Antarctic mainland, being totally self-sufficient? You can probably go and do it. Go and hunt the penguins? No would be against the law. Go and get an iceberg and tow it somewhere for the freshwater?  Hmmmm. Not sure.  Is that exploiting and mining or not. Especially if you waited until the iceberg was located in the 'high seas'. Johnscotaus (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

legitimacy of iranian government
some information about legitimacy of iranian government please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustapha-PERSIAN GULF (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... you can start by reading our article on Iran, which outlines how the current government came to power. From there, try reading the various cited sources. I am sure at least some of those sources will give opinions about that government (both supportive of it and opposed to it).   Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Iran remains one of the Member states of the United Nations, and even in the US you won't hear many (if any) politicians suggesting the government is illegitimate, only that it is unfriendly (to put it mildly). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There's also a school of thought (basically, classical, 19th century foreign relations) according to which any de-facto govt, i.e. one that controls any given nation's territory, is also a de-jure one, and that its opposite, which forces one to take a position of legitimate/non-legitimate is but sentimental moralistic post-modern cancer that has caused untold suffering (via proxy wars, revolutions, proliferation of failed states etc.) Asmrulz (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 19th-century foreign relations theorists were concerned with opposing post-modernism? --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A formulation reasonably a match on that area. I'm a supporter. --Askedonty (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Has there been any effort to apply this to the 21st century situation? For example, it might actually be informative or practical to delineate which regions of Mexico are formally governed by Los Zetas or the Sinaloa Cartel.  My ignorant guess would be that wherever the inhabitants pay more tax to the cartel than to the Mexico City government should be marked off under those jurisdictions, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to draw the line. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they are that powerful. They don't directly control the institutions, for example. But the point is, it's up to the Mexicans to sort it out. Sometimes outside countries support groups that from the locals' p.o.v. are little more than gangs or a motley crew of militants, and they exaggerate the role of those groups and their commitment to democracy to rally domestic support for intervention that would help them. Such was the case, I think, with the Northern alliance. The point is, they shouldn't do it. There's also a practical consideration - degenerate as any government may be, it's still better to restructure it than to try to turn a crime syndicate into one. Asmrulz (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, crime after all is only one simplistic replacement, for talent. It just happens, < add your curse > that it's time-consuming to learn to distinguish between obstination, and perseverance. --Askedonty (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this for me? I must be lacking IQ points to comprehend what you just said Asmrulz (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking just right now that I was risking to be understood in the reverse. No, that's only where I put the basic marker of the criminal mind, along my personal view of the human mind. Sorry. --Askedonty (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Every state is illegitimate. Therefore the one thing they agree on, however hostile they may be at the moment, is each other's legitimacy; none wants to encourage questioning the racket. —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hunting-gathering ftw! Asmrulz (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely true that hostile states recognize each other. The list of generally recognized states that don't recognize other recognized states (List of states with limited recognition) makes interesting and sometimes surprising reading. The Chinas and Koreas don't recognize each other, of course, and a lot of countries don't recognize Israel (chiefly most of the majority Muslim states, but also Communist hold-outs like Cuba and North Korea), but more oddly Pakistan doesn't recognize Armenia because Pakistan took Azerbaijan's side in the Nagorno-Karabakh War (even though Azerbaijan does recognize Armenia) and Turkey doesn't recognize Cyprus (in return, no-one recognizes the defacto independent Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Smurrayinchester 09:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, China (the PRC) has recognized both North (DPRK) and South (ROK) Korea since 1949 and 1992, respectively. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester meant that China doesn't recognize China and Korea doesn't recognize Korea, not that China and China don't recognize Korea and Korea. —Tamfang (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)