Cyberterra Treaty
 
 

Why micronational claims are still valid or legal

The natural premise of the Cyberterra Treaty (CTT) is this: micronational claims are valid or legal. What is the justification for this? Actually there are multiple sources of justification.

Micronational claims are still valid or legal because:
  1. You can have States that are not completely sovereign (e.g., New York State). You do not need to exercise full sovereignty (allodial title rights) over your space to have a degree of sovereignty.
  2. If States that are not completely sovereign still have significant powers through something called police power (often called the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the US), which is the inherent authority of a government, especially a local government, to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security, it is clear that micronations have powers as well, and these cannot be arbitrarily disposed either by sovereign or non-sovereign States — they are unalienable, and this is especially so if the associated rights are well within the reasonable scope of your jurisdiction.
  3. You can have States that are not recognised by the full international community (e.g. Palestine or Taiwan, but even Israel or China).
  4. Entities which are recognised by one or more States are generally considered states with limited recognition. However, there are also entities which are recognised by international organisations (generally IGOs, but also international NGOs can still be considered), and these are generally considered national liberation movements recognised by international organisations. Therefore, any entity with significant recognition for its claims, such as through the Cyberterra Treaty (CTT), cannot be really a "micronation" as the Wikipedia intends it, which typically has zero or insignificant recognition, but an aspirational state. Many shades of gray exist, not just black and white.
  5. You have a right to property, not a privilege to property. Even land tenure rights are still meaningful, and in certain jurisdictions they can give an amazing degree of autonomy, if you are able to exercise those rights.
  6. Nations, not just States, have rights, because peoples have rights.
  7. Democracy is an ideal, but there are closer de facto realities of that ideal than mere representative democracies.
  8. All rights originally came from God, not from man. It is thus man, and the State, which is tampering with all the rights you had in the beginning.
  9. Undemocratic nations, which are practically indispensable for one to have a concentrated and powerful State dominated by a minority of people, are not real democracies, and intelligent people ought to start educating the world about that, even through micronational values.
  10. Two things, "Analytic theology" and the "Tallini World Formula", conclusively show that there are Six Worlds out there, not just the arrogant and macho three represented at the United Nations.
  11. The presence of both statutory and common law evidence comprises Proof of Citizenship that is sufficient in any court of law. Believe it or not, but both of these kinds of evidence can be provided by (non-secessionist) Fifth World nations or micronations.
  12. A Certificate of Citizenship valid under Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention; Italian law (the Decree of the President of the Republic of 28 December 2000, No. 445, often abbreviated in Italian legalise as "D.P.R. n. 445/2000"); and UMMOA law (statutory and common law evidence as Proof of UMMOA citizenship) can be made, and being that this document would be supported by two cases of customary international law, and the national laws of at least two countries/nations, this document is perfectly legal in Italy, and even before the United Nations.
  13. From a global perspective, the Antarctic Treaty has a significant, but not even a majority of support, since only 50 UN member states recognise it. This means that Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) claims do not signify de jure recognition. These are all de facto claims, so the Antarctic Treaty does not enjoy the status of customary international law, and probably never will.
  14. It should also be noted that customary international law is based on a theory of State consent, and if a State consistently objects to a rule of customary international law, it will not be bound by it, so States would be still be free not to be bound by the Antarctic Treaty even if it were a rule of customary international law.
  15. The Antarctic Treaty does not, in itself, recognise or dispute any territorial claims, leaving this matter to individual signatories — i.e., the Antarctic Treaty doesn't settle any claims. Most of the world's countries, including the United States, do not even recognise any national claims to Antarctica. This means your nation is free to claim parts of Antarctica. Not only your nation can claim parts of Antarctica, but if part of your claimed land is unoccupied by any other State or non-State party, you can take possession of at least an acre or two by squatting on that land, and nobody, not even a State, would have the legitimate authority to throw you out. In Antarctica, and in no other place on Earth, the most powerful individual, and most powerful State, have nothing more than land tenure claims! Nobody, therefore, can act like they have any allodial title or superior land claims.
  16. Every nationalist member of a sovereign state, and even every nationalist member of a nation without a state, is entitled to identify with a certain territory. Since no distinction can legitimately be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs (Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), micronationalists with no land, or with no legitimate or quasi-legitimate land claims, are still entitled to identify with a certain territory. It should be noted that while international waters and the international seabed are treated legally as the common heritage of mankind (terra communis), Antarctica, which is terra nullius, is the only significant portion of the earth that is neither the common heritage of mankind, nor the allodial title claim of a particular sovereign State, making it at least the perfect land tenure claim over which even a micronation can exercise self-determination and independence unimpeded.
  17. If there is anyone on Earth who can claim Antarctica as their place of citizenship, it is the micronationalist, because he or she is also the only kind of nationalist not inherently capable of endangering the pristine Antarctic environment. Therefore micronationalists with a solid, and relatively long micronational history, can also acquire place of citizenship in Antarctica by naturalisation.
So the only difference between micronations and UN Member States, therefore, is that micronations do not exercise hard power, like sovereign States, but soft power. While the area of the entire surface of the planet is virtually covered by the allodial title claims of at least one UN Member State (non-disputed territory), or the claims of more than one UN Member State (disputed territory), Antarctica still is, and remains, no man's land (terra nullius), and the only claims which can be exercised by the most powerful individual, and most powerful State, in other words, by any subject of International Law, are nothing more than land tenure claims!