[Bigsmith] It seemed absurd...

[Quendalon] "It" is currently populated by living people.
[Rosie] "It" is not exclusively in the South Pacific and therefore not exclusively South of 45^oS. I fully understand and sympathise with your frustration and I think it will be necessary to draw this particular round to an end within the next 48 hours.
[Dujon] "It" is not a dissolved union or federation
[CdM] "It" could be said to be an area of disputed territory that lies partly within Antarctica.
[Chalky] You deserve a better clue than my miserable efforts so far and I shall try to provide a decent clue in a separate post passim.
[INJ] Some of "it" has military significance.
[Bigsmith] A fair summary, which I would like to supplement, if you don't mind.

1. We have recently established that, although it is abstract, it is a proper noun, despite my asserting the contrary, which will probably haunt me forever.
2. The question of whether it exists or not depends entirely on your point of view, which is to say that some people would assert that it exists and others would assert that it does not. Its very existence is a matter of dispute. It is my belief that it does not exist and is therefore abstract.
3. To the extent that it does exist, it purports to be a country, that is to say, those who believe that it does exist refer to it by a name (yes, a proper noun; sorry, again).
4. To the extent that it does exist, it is substantially, but not exclusively in Australisia/Oceania. The question of the whole, or part of Antarctica has some up more than once and is relevant.
5. To the extent that it does exist, its territorial rights are in dispute.
6. To the extent that it does exist, it does not comprise a single landmass, but several.

There is a strong biblical connection.

I don't recall Antarctica being mentioned in the Bible.