Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
Date: Mar 18, 2001 @ 19:46
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


seems right to me

also i just went back over the summary of the icj judgment
tho i didnt read all the dissents etc
& could easily have misunderstood what i did read
but the court doesnt seem to me to have created the hoped for clave
even tho it did award the hawars to bahrain as martin predicted

& i think the reason it didnt create the clave was that it also decided
that the waters between the hawars & the rest of bahrain are territorial sea

& i think the reason for that was that it also decided to disregard claims
to low tide elevations in the intermediate zone for purposes of determining
territorial seas

i hope i am wrong about at least some of that


but anyway on a possibly brighter note
the judgment does at least appear to have set the stage for the definitive
determination of the first maritime tricountry point in history because it
has seemingly identified a potentially final course & bearing of the
bahrain qatar boundary in the direction of the saudi arabian territorial sea

& i am only hoping i am right about that
as it is long & hard play to understand the text & see the maps

m


>
>I can only think of cases where there is already an area of
>territorial waters defined, but then some sort of an exception is
>made for the sovereignty of an island, and the island gets less of an
>area of terr. waters around it as it would when the general rule was
>applied. So these cases (if existing) should be well described in
>treaties, exactly because it is the result of an explicite exception
>made.
>
>It's a bit like Llivia staying Spanish, because it is a CITY and not
>a village. And the treaty talks of villages....
>
>Peter S.
>
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
>> i agree too
>> & that is precisely why the outcome of this past fridays icj
>decision is so
>> potentially groundbreaking
>> er i mean such a potential watershed development
>> & so earthshaking in a historical way
>>
>> but i cant digest or even follow it all yet
>>
>> m
>>
>> >
>> >Peter, I think you are exactly correct, which is why
>such "territorial sea
>> >enclaves" are so rare, perhaps totally non-existent. The 12-mile
>french
>> >territorial sea zone around St. Pierre et Micquelon is not
>enclosed by
>> >Canada's territorial waters.
>> >David
>> >
>> >On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Peter Smaardijk wrote:
>> >
>> >> But this is strange. The width of the band of territorial waters
>is the
>> >>same from the islands as
>> >> from the shore, I would think. The terr. waters of such an
>island can
>> >>only be completely surrounded
>> >> by the terr. waters of the mainland if the island is in a bay of
>which
>> >>the bay heads are so close
>> >> that the terr. waters close off the bay. But I would think in
>that case
>> >>the base line would pass in
>> >> between the bay heads, the water would become internal water,
>and the
>> >>island an enclave.
>> >>
>> >> In short: the terr. waters of the island (let's take the Namibian
>> >>example) reaches further west than
>> >> the terr. waters of Namibia.
>> >>
>> >> Peter S.
>> >>
>> >> Brendan Whyte wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Afetr Namibia's independence, S.Africa claimed many of the
>islands
>> >>along its
>> >> > coast, often little more than stacks. The Terr. Sea they had
>was often
>> >> > within that of Namibia fomr the sketch maps I have seen.
>> >> >
>> >> > B
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> >><<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>
>><<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=170602.1361328.2950093.2/D=egroupmail/S=170012>
>>http://rd.yahoo.com/M=170602.1361328.2950093.2/D=egroupmail/S=170012
>6166:N/A=55
>> >1014/?<http://www.debticated.com> http://www.debticated.com
>>target="_top"> Your use of
>Yahoo!
>> >Groups is subject to the <<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>Yahoo! Terms
>> >of Service.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=170603.1361494.2950176.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=61
>3928/?http://www.newaydirect.com target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>of Service.