Any enclave, if recognised as foreign by the host state, as a consequence of
that recognition must be endowed with the foreign sovereingty which
necessitates access to it by the owner to exercise that sovereignty.
This is an extension of the national laws of most countries with regard to
private land too: if the only way to get to my house is across your lawn,
you have to let me.
This was recognised by the Dadra/Nagar Haveli court case with India and
Portugal. The problem there was , as i understand it, the Indians no longer
recognised Portuguese sovereignty once the locals had kicked oout the
Portuguesep olice and declared a liberation movement. Further, the right of
access is not unrestricted. Carriage of arms etc may not be covered. As long
standing paractise had been for Protugal to ask UK for permission to move
arms and Brits would say yes, so India had to be asked and they refused.
Unarmed police would probably have been ok, but Portugal needed arms top put
down liberation movement.
Of course the whole liberation thing was probably abetted by India at the
time.
From my experiences in not being allowed officially to visit Cooch Behar
enclaves, both countries there do recognise the sovereignty of the other.
That access is not techinically allowed is probably in breach of
international law, but as national laws still have to be obeyed, they
require that crossing borders be done at a specified legitimate crossing. As
none exist for any enclave, therefroe no one can legally enter the enclaves
or leave them.
There ARE corssing for Ferghahana enclaves (see Lonely Planet guide to
Central Asia), but there is a problem of terrorism there, not helped by the
situation in Tajikistan as a whole.
B
>From: peter.smaardijk@...
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Largest enclave
>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:37:22 -0000
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@h...> wrote:
>
> > Enclaves have in international law a right to access across
>intervening
> > land. But presumably not fragments like Nakhichevan, tho i am not
>sure on
> > this.
> >
>
>Is this standing international jurisdiction? If it is, I can think of
>countries that couldn't care less. I think of the major problems for
>the inhabitants of the Bangladeshi enclaves, and those in the Fergana
>valley.
>
>Peter S.
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com