8 ms·

"it needs to maintain an actual population there and provide basic services to it. It's a fairly well established geopolitical principle." I don't think that's

"it needs to maintain an actual population there and provide basic services to it. It's a fairly well established geopolitical principle." I don't think that's true. See the middle paragraph of page 46 here: https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-i... The ICJ said that sovereignty over "thinly populated or unsettled countries" can be sustained with very little actual exercise of sovereign authority. It upheld sovereignty over unsettled portions of Greenland. They later used the same principle talking about islands that were "uninhabited or not permanently inhabited". You seem to be saying there's a general requirement that every part of sovereign territory must maintain a resident population AND that the government must provide certain 'basic services' there. But that doesn't seem to be true, at least according to the ICJ. If what you said were true, then no state could claim sovereignty over an unhabited place. But that's not true. The ICJ ruled that Malaysia had sovereignty over Ligitan, even though the island has a population of zero. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103163 https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103163

walrus01 19d ago
I somehow doubt that the major world powers that might have the capability or inclination to occupy a depopulated Alaska or Nunavut would put much credence in or be scared by a strongly worded opinion issued by the ICJ. One of them is busy trying to invade their European neighbor right now with bloody results. The other one is on a major island building project in the South China Sea turning sandbars and coral reefs into air bases to claim the oceanic territory.
- rahimnathwani 19d ago
  When you said "It's a fairly well established geopolitical principle." I assumed you were talking about the legal aspect. That's why I responded the way I did. Now I understand you're talking about not about the legality, but the practicality. That's even easier to refute I think: if a world power wanted to annex that part of Alaska, the ~4000 current residents of Nome wouldn't be much of a deterrent, even with their hunting rifles.
  - walrus01 19d ago
    No, they certainly wouldn't, but in the realpolitik of war, they would provide the justification for the USA to engage in an armed response to retain the territory. Basically think of the two scenarios of what would happen in the Falklands in 1982 if either: a) the islands were claimed by the UK but also completely unpopulated and were occupied by Argentina or b) what actually happened, the islands were occupied by almost entirely UK-descent, English speaking subjects of the Crown, resulting in subsequent military action that had broad and overwhelming public support in the UK.

walrus01 19d ago

I somehow doubt that the major world powers that might have the capability or inclination to occupy a depopulated Alaska or Nunavut would put much credence in or be scared by a strongly worded opinion issued by the ICJ. One of them is busy trying to invade their European neighbor right now with bloody results. The other one is on a major island building project in the South China Sea turning sandbars and coral reefs into air bases to claim the oceanic territory.

rahimnathwani 19d ago
When you said "It's a fairly well established geopolitical principle." I assumed you were talking about the legal aspect. That's why I responded the way I did. Now I understand you're talking about not about the legality, but the practicality. That's even easier to refute I think: if a world power wanted to annex that part of Alaska, the ~4000 current residents of Nome wouldn't be much of a deterrent, even with their hunting rifles.
- walrus01 19d ago
  No, they certainly wouldn't, but in the realpolitik of war, they would provide the justification for the USA to engage in an armed response to retain the territory. Basically think of the two scenarios of what would happen in the Falklands in 1982 if either: a) the islands were claimed by the UK but also completely unpopulated and were occupied by Argentina or b) what actually happened, the islands were occupied by almost entirely UK-descent, English speaking subjects of the Crown, resulting in subsequent military action that had broad and overwhelming public support in the UK.