[ga] FYI

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

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