Permanently Neutral/Unclaimed Territories

I was just wondering: would it be possible to have a modern world in which there are territories (aside from Antarctica)
that are permanently neutral and unclaimed, and are not claimed or officially governed by any nation?

And if that would be possible, then what kind of POD would it take to realize such a scenario?

The Sahara perhaps? If African colonisation hadn't been such a prestige thing and colonies had been laid based on economics rather than drawing lines on a map to carve up the roast...the colonies and perhaps thus the independent successor states would have been based only on the coastline.

I have a timeline I'm writing thats similiar to this concept, Africa's interior is largely unclaimed, or in the very least ungoverned. Disease and native warriors are just too frequent and devestating for the Europeans to venture forth until the early twentieth century, and even then its controversial and only for the sake of building rail lines which becomes an expensive endeavor. Hostile natives have learned to destroy rail lines and block them, taking hostages for many different purposes.

If the European Powers wanted to "civilize" these areas, they of course could but it is seen as an expensive gamble and there is generally little interest in it.

Something similiar is the case in Brazil too, however there are small European settlements deep into Brazil's jungles, the rivers serve as important life lines and are better suited to Europe's purposes than Africa's.

North America on the other hand, probably not as likely, however I am considering an independent Cherokee nation in the Southern Appalachia.

There's the Saudi - Iraq neutral zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-Iraqi_neutral_zone

From an official standpoint, I cannot envision a world in which large tracts of land are permanently neutral and unclaimed. If we can find our way there we claim it. It would seem to me that the only way to reach such a situation would be to eliminate population pressure - but that might take either a nuclear war, a Malthusian climax, or really cheap travel off-planet.

From a practical standpoint, there are certainly some large parcels lying around which because of location and/or climate are unused. Any people living out there are basically on their own.

I may be wrong, but the idea that all territory needs to be "claimed" and ringed about with imaginary lines, no matter what the facts on the ground happen to be, seems to be a fairly recent and specifically Western Europe conceit. AFAIK, the compulsion to draw lines all over the map representing political borders originated there.

While other societies (particularly those whose economies were based upon agriculture) recognized property boundaries, as well as territories attached to centers of population and even had vague ideas of larger regions (which were, in hindsight, almost never very precise), the idea that a state needs to claim sole sovereignty over all territory within a certain geographic region, even empty and unpopulated territory lacking in any economic or strategic value, strikes me as fairly modern.

Plus, any pastoral or nomadic groups aren't going to see any value in restricting themselves within such borders.

So, in essense, this shouldn't be that difficult a challenge - there are any number of ways that one can approach it.

Ran Exilis said:

I was just wondering: would it be possible to have a modern world in which there are territories that are permanently neutral and unclaimed, and are not claimed or officially governed by any nation?

Click to expand...

The Crimea after the 1850s Crimean War, perhaps? IIRC, it was demilitarized for a short time. If the allies pressed a continuation of that status, and pressed the issue further, it could have been declared a Permanently Neutral Zone.

AirshipArmada said:

There's the Saudi - Iraq neutral zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-Iraqi_neutral_zone

Click to expand...

Is it still there ? It wasn't on a recent map I accessed, tho' I couldn't work out who had 'accidentally' annexed it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, the problem with the Sahara is that there were so many native states in it. Mind you, the remaining area could remain unclaimed.

The problem is, if the land is there, someone is going to claim it eventually.

Perhaps more international zones could exist, but most territories are going to be claimed by someone sooner or later.

If the German/Belgian border is not redone after WW1, you still have this small strip of basically neutral territory.

Ran Exilis said:

I was just wondering: would it be possible to have a modern world in which there are territories (aside from Antarctica)
that are permanently neutral and unclaimed, and are not claimed or officially governed by any nation?

And if that would be possible, then what kind of POD would it take to realize such a scenario?

Click to expand...

Your POD would have to go back 4 billion years to change the course of evolution so that humans aren't territorial but magically, the TL converges with ours.

I suppose it's possible that a single place could have been designated international to be the HQ of the UN, but that's about it - and even then, it would have to have some sort of government and citizenry to operate it.

Grey Wolf said:

Is it still there ? It wasn't on a recent map I accessed, tho' I couldn't work out who had 'accidentally' annexed it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

The Saudis and Iraqis got rid of it at some point. It was not very newsworthy. There was also a Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone.

If you want areas with unclear sovereignty, take the Palestinian Territories and the Western Sahara. I think there's also a section of the Egyptian-Sudanese border that each side claims to be part of the other (if they claimed it for themselves they'd be following a borderline that leaves the Hala'ib Triangle to the other side). You might find similar cases if you look at some of the frontier disputes in the Arabian Peninsula.

What about in the South pacific with the most inaccessible & inhospitable expanses of Borneo & New Guinea ?

Jerusalem
The whole Mideast?
Suppose Deseret becomes independent and the Civil War is devastating for both sides; either the North wins with a Pyrrhic victory, or the South wins but is very weak. There's fighting over the rich mines in Nevada and surrounding areas of desert, maybe in Death Valley, so some of that area might end up being a Neutral Zone.
Some of the islands of the Canadian North, the Indian Ocean?
When undersea mining and exploration becomes easy and common, there might be territorial disputes over parts of various oceans and seas. The surface of the North Pacific might be free to all but Canada might claim parts of the Pacific Ocean floor. So the US tries to invade...

(Hey, the emoticons don't seem to be working. Nothing happens when I click on one.)

Melvin Loh said:

What about in the South pacific with the most inaccessible & inhospitable expanses of Borneo & New Guinea ?

Click to expand...

Well, though it would be quite easy to maintain the neutrality of very remote and/or inhospitable territories until about halfway the 19th century or so, but I'm affraid that inaccesability and inhospitability alone is not going to stop countries from claiming these territories in the 20th and 21st centuries.

At that point, you'd really need international treaties in order to keep such territories permanently neutral.