Exactly, this was the problem. Just like S.Afr claimed Walvis Bay for 4
years, 1990-94, then finally gave it back. The islands were also a source of
contention, Namibia feeling it would have a ridiculously fragmented
territoial waters if S Afr kept them, and S Afr basing its claim to i
believe old British Guano claims to the islands, which were covered in
birdie doo-doo.
B
>From: Peter Smaardijk <peter.smaardijk@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
>Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:05:03 +0100
>
>I still don't see it. In that case, from the Namibian perspective, these
>islands are Namibian (they
>are included within the base line). So no South-African territorial waters
>whatsoever. From the
>South-African point of view, Namibia has no right to include these islands
>in their base line. So SA
>territorial waters have a boundary with the outer sea, because they are
>further out to sea than the
>shore. So we have two view points (both with no enclaves) and NO official
>situation.
>
>Peter S.
>
>Brendan Whyte wrote:
>
> > No, i don't think so. The islands were only just offshore. Namibia will
> > include them within her baselines and so claim 12nm from the islands.
> > S.Africa included just the islands and 12nm from them. Same effect.
> > Remember that this was just while the islands were disputed between 1990
>and
> > maybe 1994 when Walvis Bay was given back. I think the cliam to the
>islands
> > was given up then too.
> >
> > B
> >
> > >From: David Mark <dmark@...>
> > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > >To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
> > >Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:14:58 -0500 (EST)
> > >
> > >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/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com