# \[BosAc\] Proclamation of Avalon **URL:** \ **Category:** Intergalactic Summit\ **Created:** [December 1, 2020, 5:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/bosac-proclamation-of-avalon/283001 "2020-12-01T05:28:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 19
**Author:** ![Galm\_Eskola-Fae](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/galm_eskola-fae/32/511580_2.png) [@Galm\_Eskola-Fae](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Galm_Eskola-Fae)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2020, 8:38pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/bosac-proclamation-of-avalon/283001/19 "2020-12-01T20:38:49Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > The Thukkers’ determination was about the Seykal Clan, not cloned mercenaries. I feel as though there’s a disconnect here, or perhaps an underestimation of our understanding of the law. Yes. I am aware that the statement made by the Thukker Tribe was in relation to Seykal Clan activity. Yes, I am aware that this does not make any specific mention regarding warclones. What matters, however, is that these statements were in response to [multiple well documented attempts](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/molden-heath-krullefor-inquest/179884) by ourselves and our allies to request that the Thukker Tribe answer for Seykal-Krullefor activity at a time when our forces were actively involved in the Skarkon conflict. Even if the statement were not specifically made in reference to _our_ request but an unmentioned Republic Justice Department indictment, the underlying implication is the same; **the Thukker clan were aware of our activity in the region being conducted on land issued to warclones to investigate Seykal-Krulefor activity but did not make any statements or policy to reflect that which would alter the prior agreement between the Thukker and the warclone community.** _Vis-a-vis_ by way of _qui tacet consentire videtur_ we continue to operate on Skarkon under the consent of the Thukker. Some might call that a jump in logic, but when dealing with matters of international politics the onus is on state actors to be informed of ongoing activity when driving policy, particularly when you are issuing public statements denying your involvement in a massive smuggling enterprise. It doesn’t change or effect that the Thukker never adjusted their stance on warclone settlement. You can point to Kril Efrit’s actions reflecting the opinion of the Tribal Council at the time, but at that point your getting into arguments of Tribal Jurisdiction that has been argue ad nauseum since the RSS and the Circle for Cooperation began is latest trend of vast political overreach. This is just one piece in the case that makes up our claims to the land. If you don’t find that argument particularly compelling I’d direct you to instead focus on the Right of Gift, Conquest, Abandoned Property, Adverse Possession, and Accession previously mentioned. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Nor does any number of _districts_ on Skarkon II grant you _de jure_ claim to the orbital infrastructure supporting the _entire planet_, let alone _all five_ orbital customs offices in the system. This one is actually very straightforward. As the lawful owners of the planetary orbital customs offices, we have perfectly legitimate claim to them by Right of Deed. I doubt anyone would seriously argue otherwise. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Their claim is not so legitimate I maintain that these claims are legitimate based on international law outlined above. _Disputed_ however? Perhaps. But that’s a different matter entirely, and still leaves us in a better position than having no claims at all. > [@Callisto\_Menkalinan](#): > > My point is that SARO was deployed on Skarkon and BosAc responded by throwing its lot in with the Collective instead of surrendering to SARO and encouraging its members to submit to the reprogramming necessary to integrate them with regulated PMCs I was preparing myself to discuss some of the points you have mentioned, but you’ll have to forgive me if I’m not at all keen to interact with this train of conversation if this is the point you are arguing from. I will argue many things but I will absolutely not debate the _personhood_ and right to bodily autonomy of our comrades. Both those things should be self-evident and inalienable, and interacting with any form of argument questioning that feels like it adds unfounded legitimacy to the contrary. I do wonder how many of the warclones in your sister organization, including those that are Round Table union members, feel to hear of you arguing against their right to self-determination. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/bosac-proclamation-of-avalon/283001)._