Funny, the decree from 1998 does not mention the 306,9 m from the
border marker 1. If I follow you line of reasoning, this is because
the entire line between the two markers (No.1 and No.2) is a triline
shared by all three states, but there is a slight problem and
correct me if I misunderstood something: In art 1. nr.2 is says
that "... state boundary meeting point of the three countries is
located on the point where the line delimiting the boundary water
areas of the three countries intersects the middle line of the main
channel of the river." To me, this is the actual and factual
tripoint. At this point, as it says in art.3 nr.1 at the end "...a
boundary merkar on the state boundary meeting point of the three
countries, which is located on the water level of the Tumannaja
river, will not be erected." That's what I meant by getting wet and
going fishing. The tripoint is on the water level.
However, on the land both on Korean and Russian-chinese river bank,
there are the tripoint markers and that's something else than the
actual tripoint. The actual tripoint on the water level is located
on the line between the two tripoint markers no.1 and no.2. There is
no mentioning about how far is the actual tripoint from the two
tripoint markers either.
Another thing, and interesting enough is that the border marker 423
or the first tripoint marker, is still a border marker between China
and Russia only. The Korea is not to be mentioned on it. This could
mean as I suggested last time, that this border marker 423 has been
chosen for convenience purpose in order to delineate the factual
tripoint on the water level, but not actually giving a territorial
claim on the boundary line to the Koreans. That claim is perhaps
heralded by the erection of tripont marker no.3, where on the one
side is written Korea. Yet it stands solely on the Russian
territory. One might guess that the tripoint marker no.3 is placed
on the line between markers no.1 and no.2 but closer to the river
bank designating the start of the line dividing the river waters
between the joint Chinese-korean and Russian. If the tripoint border
marker no.3 is placed inside Russian territory, then it has to be in
some angle to the line between the other two tripoint markers.
Otherwise the tripoint marker no.3 is placed de facto on the Chinese-
russian border. But again no specification about it in the decree.
The art 1 nr.1 says something about the main points deciding the
direction of the line. It says that, ...a straight line, running
perpendicular from boundary marker no.423 on the Russian-Chinese
state boundary to the line in the middle of the main channel of the
river in between the two river banks." If the tripoint marker no. 3
is not on this straight line, then it can not run perpendicular to
the actual tripoint in the river.
The line can not be considered as the same as the actual tripoint.
None of the treaty parties mention it like this. Art 3. no.1 says
that, ...the state boundary meeting point of the three countries
will be demarcated by three markers...". To me, it does not mean
that every tripoint marker is the actual tripoint or that the line
is a point in itself, but that the tripoint markers only demarcate
the actual tripoint. The demarcation determines the actual tripoint
on the water level of Tumannja river. Thus, the tripoint markers are
mathematical, physical and geographical constructs with the sole
purpose of demarcating the actual tripoint.
Petter
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "pete2784west" <
> petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> > As I understand it: The border marker 423 is originally Russian-
> > chinese only, but probably for the convenience of setting up a
> > borderline which ends in the middle of the river Tumen, this
border
> > marker is taken as a starting point (cf. art.1). From this point
the
> > line is perpendicular to the Chinese-korean borderline formed by
the
> > middle of the main channel of the river Tumen. The waters of the
> > river behind the borderline going from border marker 423 to the
> > middle of the river are called "joint boundary water area of
China
> > and Korea DPR". So the waters are joint, and it makes it easier
for
> > the Korean border guards to shoot at people fleeing the country
as
> > long as they are in the river, but once they get on the shore
they
> > are in China only. The Chinese-korean borderline goes all the
way
> > through the middle of the river channel up to the point where
> > Russia, China and KoreaDPR meet. Further down the stream of
Tumen
> > river continues Russian-korean borderline being placed again in
the
> > middle of the course of the Tumen river. We are still talking
about
> > waters, no land. The tripoints are placed on both sides of the
> > river,
>
> i figure you must mean the tripoint markers here petter
>
> not the tripoints themselves
>
> but i agree we are really talking about 2 distinct tripoints here
> cncnkpru & cnkpkpru
>
>
> however
> these actual tripoints are simply at the 2 end points of the cnkp
joint
> or condo zone cnkpru triline
>
> think of it as an ordinary tripoint halved or stretched into a
triline
> between 2 semitripoints
>
> & one of those semitripoints is marked by monument 1
>
> & the other is the unmarked point where the sight line between
monument
> 1 & monument 2 crosses the midchannel line
>
> so as i understand it
> marker 1 also serves with marker 2 to witness the entire triline
> including the unmarked end point & cosemitripoint at midchannel
>
> we have encountered something very much like this before with the
delu
> condo trilines
>
> no biggie
>
> technically
> as was observed then
> all such trilines are dipunctitrilines
>
> or more technically still ditripunctitrilines
> meaning simply trilines with tripoints at each terminal
>
>
> & i also agree it isnt clear whether the joint zone extends all
the way
> to the korean bank
> nor does it apparently matter to the russians
> who have no such condo with korea
> nor does it apparently matter for tripointing &or trilining
purposes
>
> more insertions below
>
> but they are standing on the sovereign territories, either
> > Russia, China or Korea. Art. 4 states that every country is
having
> > responsibility for one border marker each. The picture of
> > bordermarker 3 I've seen here, is Russian responsibility.
>
> technically 1 marker is on cncnkpru & 1 is in kp & 1 is in ru
>
> >
> > So, reaching a tripoint here means getting wet and go fishing.
>
> not really
> as explained 1 tripoint is marked & the other is wet
>
> From
> > border marker no.1 on a straight line perpendicular to the
middle of
> > the stream of the river Tumen, 306,9 m in to the water. Anyone
> > should feel pretty safe then :-). Then, still following the
line,
> > one should get to the shores of the Korea DPR and hit the border
> > marker no.2. When still in the water and keeping the line aiming
at
> > border marker no. 2, to the right you are still in the joint
Chinese-
> > korean joint boundary water area. To the left you are still in
the
> > water, but whether Russians and Koreans agreed to something
similiar
> > as the chines and koreans, I don't know.
> >
> > I'm not clear about why the third border marker has been set up
on
> > the Russian territory and whether this border marker is placed
on
> > the same borderline drawn between border marker no. 1 (on
Chinese-
> > russian border) and no. 2 (in Korea).
>
> clearly it is not on the line between markers 1 & 2 but downstream
>
> more below
>
> This is why the final protocol
> > from 2002 is still needed.
> >
> > Petter
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
> > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > Witness marker 1 (aka CN-RU 423): We know this is
> > > exactly on the CN-RU boundary and is exactly on the
> > > point where CN-RU hits the CNKP condo (CN-CNKP-RU).
> > > So why is CNKP-KP-RU the official "state boundary
> > > meeting point of the three countries" (article 1,
> > > section 2 of the treaty in message 12459)?
>
> this end of the triline is the official meeting point of the 3
> countries just as much as the other end of the triline is the
official
> meeting point
> & indeed just as much as the entire triline as a whole is the
official
> meeting point
>
> isnt that lovely
>
> a line is a point
>
> & a point has become a line between 2 points
> Doesn't
> > > CN-CNKP-RU have just as much the same tripoint status
> > > since it is one of the 2 terminal points of the
> > > CNKP-RU triline?
>
> yes
>
> > > Also - I am unclear on the condo in this regard: Is
> > > the CNKP condo the entire river (1 in diagram) or just
> > > half of the river on the Chinese side (2 in diagram).
> > > I mean we know the triline only goes out to the middle
> > > of the main channel of the river, but couldn't a
> > > CNKP-KP line continue after that?
>
> we dont know
>
> nor does it actually matter for the purposes of our cnkpru chase
>
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: cnkpru - more
> > > > pictures
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Some more pics (they seem to connect):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p352.jpg
> > > > > > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p081.jpg
> > > >
> > > > this latter pic appears to be by far the best pic we
> > > > have
> > > >
> > > > & if the fence observed by jesper does indeed mark
> > > > cnru
> > > > then cnru marker 1 aka 423 should be on the bank at
> > > > the end of that
> > > > fence
> > > > slightly obscured by the foliage
> > > > unless that dark dot there near the sand flat is the
> > > > marker
> > > > yikes
> > > >
> > > > but in any case the triline should run from this
> > > > cncnkpru point 423
> > > > perpendicular to the bank & halfway across the
> > > > channel
> > > > to the unmarked cnkpkpru tripoint at the other end
> > > > of the triline
> > > >
> > > > does everybody see & get that
> > > > because i do believe we can visualize all this now
> > > > for the first time
> > > >
> > > > bravissimos all
> > > > in any case
> > > > > > Peter S.