alt Hacker News> The folks suggesting that other people should pay to improve things for people choosing to live in that area
If the United States federal government wants to maintain a legitimate claim to sovereignty over much of rural Alaska, which is very sparsely populated, it needs to maintain an actual population there and provide basic services to it. It's a fairly well established geopolitical principle.
Similarly there's something like 41,000 people in Nunavut, and the Canadian government spends a shitload every year subsidizing all their communities' existence. But the alternative is worse, if you remove the population there's a danger that other interested parties might try to lay claim to it for themselves. It seems we're already seeing that with the US trying to claim Greenland for itself based on the concept that nobody is doing anything useful with it.
"it needs to maintain an actual population there and provide basic services to it. It's a fairly well established geopolitical principle."
I don't think that's true.
See the middle paragraph of page 46 here: https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/permanent-court-of-i...
The ICJ said that sovereignty over "thinly populated or unsettled countries" can be sustained with very little actual exercise of sovereign authority. It upheld sovereignty over unsettled portions of Greenland. They later used the same principle talking about islands that were "uninhabited or not permanently inhabited".
You seem to be saying there's a general requirement that every part of sovereign territory must maintain a resident population AND that the government must provide certain 'basic services' there. But that doesn't seem to be true, at least according to the ICJ.
If what you said were true, then no state could claim sovereignty over an unhabited place. But that's not true. The ICJ ruled that Malaysia had sovereignty over Ligitan, even though the island has a population of zero. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103163