stefansson-wrangel-09-37-051

-50

then the other questions arise; for then the occupation
would not be an invasion of a claim of Russia which is
recognized by Great Britain. The occupation, to be sure,
was not particularly effective. But, nevertheless, it was
the only occupation. That it was the act of private parties
can make no difference if Great Britain should at some
time decide to adopt it as a public act. The only danger
is that, if a long time elapses before this is done,
Great Britain might be said to have abandoned the claim.
How long the period of time must be is uncertain.

In consequence, viewing the question with the light
of the facts at my disposal, I should say that the islsnd
belongs to Russia, as part of her territory, due to the
failure of any other nation - so far as is known - to con-
test her claim made in the declaration of 1916. Further,
this claim has in recent times been strengthened by Rus-
sia's continued assertion of, and attempt to enforce,
right of administration over the territory. If the Rus-
sian claim, due to an error in my facts, does not exist,
then the next claim is Great Britain's.

Finally, it seems that contiguity does not give
Russia a claim, but rather a reason to make a claim;
that no claims can be based on discovery, because the
territory was too long derelict after the discovery;
that no claim can be based on the idea of abandonment.