Comments on: Long Live Sealand!

By: CJ Rivenbark

CJ Rivenbark — Sat, 05 May 2007 00:14:00 +0000

I have the season of Family Guy with that episode on it (season 2). It was a hilarious episode. Everyone should watch it, especially in light of your International Law mock trial.

By: David M Manes

David M Manes — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:11:00 +0000

Have you guys seen the Family Guy with “Petoria?” It’s pretty funny. I’m pretty sure that concept has appeared in other tv shows also. Know any more?

By: Chris McNeal

Chris McNeal — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:38:00 +0000

I think ex post facto would fall under the “general principles” segment of international law.

By: S.C. Denney

S.C. Denney — Fri, 04 May 2007 16:18:00 +0000

Without defining territory as a area essentially controlled by a government, one has to be relatively general. I said that land territory makes use of segments of the earth or an enclosed part of the earth's surface. Sealand, an artificial platform, sits atop of two concrete pillars; it by no means whatsoever makes use of any part of the surface of the earth. Can oil rigs be considered land territory and constitute a state? No...

The Venice example is completely irrelevant for is not completely sovereign, it is a principality of Italy.

Also, ex post facto law are not technically illicit in International Law.

But whatever, I was too vague, sure... what the hell was I suppose to say besides Sealand is not a state, because it is a slab of concrete which used to be an anti-aircraft platform, arbitrarily declared a state. There is not ONE other artificial state in the international community, for ALL states make use of the surface of the earth aka land territory which is a part of the earth's surface or sitting directly thereon. Sealand can not be seen as a real state.

I wasn't going to criticize anyone, but since I was so vague to you Kyle, thanks.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:26:00 +0000

Personally, I don’t think they are a true state, but The prosecution didn’t give me clear concise standards to vote on. Steve, your definition of territory was so vague, and they start giving me all sorts of examples, like Venice, which has no land and is entirely on pylons, and they give me a clear definition. If you guys had asked “Prince” Roy if the “state” was up for sale, I probably would have convicted on the government indictment. Preponderance of the evidence. Defense gave me more.

By: S.C. Denney

S.C. Denney — Fri, 04 May 2007 06:16:00 +0000

As a key witness for the prosecution I naturally was against the final verdict. I was a German district judge who took the stand as a key witness in proclaiming the illegitimacies of Sealand's purported "territory" and its alleged "nationals." With that said, I must concede that David's defense was remarkably well planned and executed beautifully, quelling any good points I may have made during my testimony.

I wish our prosecution would had been a bit more congruent and fluid but you can't win 'em all.

I still hold Sealand to be a illegitimate state, along with the rest of the world. ;)

Congrats David and team.