If founders and citizens of the Antarctic Sovereign Theocratic State of St. George they have committed offenses and whether this statell is legitimate or not, are matters that will be decided by the judiciary. However, the problems highlighted by this initiative and hastily dismissed as impromptu or yet another expression of Italian mischief they are much more complex. Indeed, they concern the very concept of state and, in particular, the criteria for distinguishing an “original” state from a “patacca” one.
In summary: a state is such if it is recognized by some other state although not necessarily from all the states. The case best known to the general public, having recently hit the headlines, is Taiwan, but it is certainly not the only one. Israel, for example, is not recognized by 28 countries while Somaliland has no international recognition. The Bouthan maintains diplomatic relations with about fifty countries among which there is no Italy; and given the ability to produce energy and the buffer role between China and India, it would be quite inappropriate to dismiss the matter with the well-known expression of the Roman dialect. There are many other examples that could be given.
Consequently, it is not so automatic to liquidate the State of San Giorgio (and, before him, the Principality of Sealand) as non-entities devoid of international political subjectivity. It is enough to remember, in fact, that the Serenissima Republic of San Marino was born, as the traditional narrative wants, from a small community settled on Mount Titano and that its independence was guaranteed not by its own military strength but by the availability of the great powers that allowed it to to survive. Also purged of the rhetoric of the Risorgimento the unification of Italy was built “by conclusive facts” in the context of the geopolitical balances of the time; not to mention that around the same time Belgium was drawn by England and France on the political map of Europe.
So, if the principle of “colonial law” applies according to which whoever arrives on a no man’s land becomes the owner and has the right to prevent anyone from occupying it, what is the difference between the New World discovered by Columbus and the states founded by the “constituent fathers” of Sealand or of San Giorgio? From a theoretical point of view, none. In practical terms, however, the survival of the newly proclaimed state depends on two elements: the ability to defend against external interference and the interest of other international actors in keeping the newcomer alive.
To understand the importance of the theme just replace “Sealand” and “San Giorgio” with “Moon” and “Mars”. On our satellite (but, then, “ours”, why?) the stars and stripes flag stands out. Therefore a first form of state territorial attribution already exists; when Russia and China reclaim their spaces, a diplomatic conflict will have to be managed with no simple solution, but still in the context of confrontation between political subjects endowed with sovereignty. But if Musk or Bezos get to Mars first and plant their “own” flag – maybe in the form of modules that allow human permanence – why shouldn’t they claim the autonomy of their “kingdom” from the other States of the Earth? Put in these terms, the story would seem the plot of a novel by Isaac Asimov or a anime Japanese —Gundam, just to name one— but it isn’t.
Before make fun of Sealand or the State of St. Georgetherefore, it would be preferable to reflect on the future that awaits us. A platform in international waters or a lost slice of land at the edge of the world will also be a curiosity or a means of evading the law. To decide who has the power to create a new state (perhaps on another planet) is a tremendously serious matter for the survival of all mankind.