The film 28 Days Later depicts the breakdown of society following the accidental release of a highly contagious “Rage” virus that turns those infected mindlessly violent zombies. The virus quickly spreads and overtakes the country. The film follows the vicious human nature of the several survivors.
In the sequel 28 Weeks Later, we learn that the outbreak of the virus was limited to Great Britain, the country was quarantined, and the infected died of starvation en masse five weeks after the breakout (unlike the George Romero zombie series where the infected apparently never starve or die). The United States declares the war against infection was won, and 28 weeks later an American-led NATO force begins repopulating the country with what appears to be British expatriates. Thus begins (or should begin) the reconstruction of Britain.
Ignoring the film’s plot and ending, the basis of the story begs the question: if a populated, first world country was suddenly free of people (by virus, neutron bomb, or whatever), but the valuable infrastructure and resources of the country remaining intact, who should have the right to repopulate the country? Under international law we can assume that nationals overseas would have the right to return. But who else?
I can envision several scenarios.
- In addition to repopulation by nationals, descendants of nationals, such as second, third, and even fourth generation persons, could also have a right of return.
- The nationals who repopulate could form a government that could decide standards of immigration.
- A repopulation of this scale in today’s world would require serious international cooperation. An international body overseeing or supervising the efforts could decide standards of immigration.
- Permit repopulation by persons fluent in the language native language, so as to speed repopulation while avoiding potential cultural conflicts between immigrants and expatriates.
- A “New Frontier” policy could open up and allow anyone, or the first 10 or 20 million to show up, or anyone who showed up during a certain period.
Are their other possible policies? What is preferable? Reader comments most welcome.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Pornography on demand arrives in Taliban country
- » Tag der deutschen Einheit
COMMENTS / 9 COMMENTS
Brent Grace added these pithy words on 02 Oct 07 at 3:15 pmFrom a strictly “legal”? perspective, I would think options 1 and 2 are sensible, rational solutions to the problem you describe. But I think scenario 4 is closest to what would happen should a large industrialized nation be suddenly depopulated. Consider how much trouble modern, populated nations have with controlling who crosses the border. An empty country would, whatever the “official” policy, probably wind up the home of whoever could get there, stake their claim, and hold it.
This is a very interesting scenario when considered in light of Russia’s falling population…........
Dave M added these pithy words on 02 Oct 07 at 3:50 pmI would expect a huge influx from less-developed nations, leading to the creation of a polyglot, multiethnic set of enclaves that functions only loosely as a ‘nation’ in the traditional sense, as the maintenance of a central poltiical order would be near-impossible unless borders could be sealed while power is consolidated. Which is to say, without an occupying foreign force to establish order, the result would be either anarchy or the loosest of federalisms. Could an international body coordinate the relevant force and create effective legal structures? I think not; only unilateral action by a major power could avoid the need to reconstitute civil authority internally, and from scratch.
Chief Wiggum added these pithy words on 02 Oct 07 at 4:02 pmActually, something akin to the “Rage” virus is already present in the UK, but so far it has been confined to soccer stadiums.
I think Dave’s scenario is the most likely. It would be a free-for-all to grab what’s there. Does any European state have the assets and wherewithal to blockade the UK by sea to keep people out, or garrison the island to keep the repopulation orderly? Probably not. More likely, they would consider it a lost cause and encourage their own rabble to leave the continent and live in Britain. It’s an interesting question.
Curzon added these pithy words on 02 Oct 07 at 4:49 pmAnother option that I didn’t consider is that one country could unilaterally annex the country as its territory—how would the international community react to tha?
Adrian added these pithy words on 02 Oct 07 at 6:23 pmThe country’s government should sell residence licenses to raise revenue to rebuild the country. Even if the infrastructure is intact, you’re still going to have to re-network the entire population.
beowulf added these pithy words on 03 Oct 07 at 1:36 amCurzon wrote:
“Another option that I didn’t consider is that one country could unilaterally annex the country as its territory—how would the international community react to tha[t]?”Probably the same way it reacted to China’s annexation of Tibet, namely, with a lot of handwringing and little, if any, action. Without a resident population, you might not even get the handwringing.
snow added these pithy words on 03 Oct 07 at 3:57 amI think the reaction of the international community would really depend on which country it was. If it were England, I think the reaction would be very strong. For example, if the French or Germans grabbed it, the reaction from others would be furious and war would probably break out. I think there is enough rivalry between the French, Germans and English (in the former colonies) that they wouldn’t stand for the others to take it. But if it were some small, isolated place such as Tibet, you’re right, the reaction may not be much.
IJ added these pithy words on 03 Oct 07 at 12:50 pmEchoes of an earlier post in this forum.
The United Nations has hundreds of territorial disputes to adjudicate on. Meanwhile. . .
According to the Wall Street Journal:
“Power, not international law, will settle the issue. Indeed, international law recognizes this fact by making title dependent on a nation’s ability to exert control over an area. . . That is why Russia is sending ships into the Arctic, and why Canada is saying that it will patrol the Northwest Passage. As long as such expressions of power are credible, other nations, disadvantaged by distance, will generally acquiesce and sovereignty will be extended accordingly. Russia’s expression of power is credible; Canada’s is not. Canada cannot prevent other countries from sending ships up the Northwest Passage, as the U.S. has demonstrated from time to time for just this purpose”?.
No wonder Britain worries about a repeat of war in the Falkland Islands.
Nick added these pithy words on 04 Oct 07 at 11:44 pmAs any fule kno, the “Rage”-infected victims in 28 Days Later (and 28 Weeks Later) are not zombies as they are not dead – unlike in the George Romero films, where the zombie victims are killed, and then rise from the dead to become … zombies. However, precisely because the “Rage” victims in the 28 films are still living, they can die of tedious things like bloodloss and hunger.
I’ll get my anorak …
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
