On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:00:16 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:46:22 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:46:16 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:51:57 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

Who are the Hillingdon English Democrats...POWER TO THE
PEOPLEEEEEEEE!
Another variation on UKIP ? Apparently some bloke called Gary
Bushell is their candidate for the Mayoralty of Greater London :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democrats
which seems to mention desires on the territory of a neighbouring
country, a policy which largely fell out of favour in the rest of
Europe about 1938.

Spain, Ireland and various Balkan places at least have laid claim to
territory since then, and Russia has annexed territory.

Not forgetting the UK's annexation of territory in September 1955, "the
final territorial expansion of the British Empire" according to
Wikipedia. (The territory was the island of Rockall.)

It was for practical purposes only a paperwork annexation which was also
attempted by Iceland and the Irish Republic. These claims have all been
declared invalid by the United Nations

I don't think that's true. Can you cite a source for that?

The disputing countries seem to have acknowledged the International
Convention on the Law of the Sea (a UN device) by ratifying the
relevant treaties rather than "going to court" over the matter.

It's certainly true they've all ratified that treaty, and that it's a UN
effort (it's actually called the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, not the International etc), and that signing the treaty meant
relinquishing any EEZ claims based on Rockall; i don't think i'd say that
counts as the UN declaring anything invalid, but at this point we're
splitting hairs.

Also, having had a look through the treaty, i don't think there's anything
in there which has any effect on sovereignty over islands; it's true that
it says that who owns Rockall is irrelevant to the apportionment of EEZs
and the continental shelf, but it doesn't seem to say anything about who
does own Rockall.

Here's article 121:

Article 121 - Regime of islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of
an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this
Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Note that paragraph 3 *doesn't* stop Rockall generating a region of
territorial sea or a contiguous zone, just EEZ and shelf. FWIW.

IIRC the catch is that Rockall has in law a territorial sea of its own
but it is too isolated from the next bit of sovereign territory to act
as an extension to that territory. The rock versus island argument (as
in the former doesn't count as "land") seems to be an ongoing matter
of consideration, being mentioned in "The Maritime Zones of Islands in
International Law" in Google Books with each new proposed definition
bringing up a reason from someone why it is defective.

as it is not recognised as habitable land despite the efforts of an
ex-SAS man who camped on the rock for a few weeks.

You're right about it not being habitable, and despite the SAS camping
trip, i don't think anybody claims it is, even the UK. As an
uninhabitable rock, it has no effect on the allocation of exclusive
economic zones or continental shelf rights, and so nobody really cares
who actually owns it. Britain annexed because of the rocket testing
thing. Furthermore, AIUI, Rockall just falls within the UK's EEZ, and
so it gets too look after it in terms of mining, ecological protection,
etc.

St. Kilda trumps Donegal for the EEZ measurement AFAICT although ISTR
there might be a certain amount of mutually-agreed straight-line drawing
of the UK-IRL boundary for the sake of simplicity.

Yes - cribbing mercilessly from Wikipedia:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLAT...-IRL1988CS.PDF

tom