Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] clave census etc
Date: May 01, 2001 @ 00:43
Author: Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


I think land/water is a reasonable divide. Rivers and lakes are often used
as boundaries, for the obvious reason that they provide an obvious and
natural divide. They ususally don't move much and are obvious features of
the environment, allowing the boundary to be clear even if the area is
relatively unknown to the government or to an individual travelling in the
area. They also provide a transport route accessing both sides of land, thus
a neutral highway.
Therefore when a waterbody is on a boundary, it is unusual to find a small
section of land belonging to one political unit fomr one side, on the other
side, surrounded by the second unit.
This can happen in a number of ways:
river meander as along the mississippi
imperfect knowledge, as in Angle Inlet
Damming of a river to form a lake, as in the Al/Tn/Ms tripoint, the northenr
Portuguese border, etc.
A piece of land of on riparian political unit is created by man or nature on
the other side. This leads to problems of administration as access requires
crossing the waterbody, which involves a break in mode of transport. The
crossing of the water may be tide/river level/flood/weather dependent. It
may be dangerous because of corcodiles, shallows, reefs, debris, etc etc. IT
is slower than by road. It is often unbridgeable, or just not economically
viable to bridge. It is thus often advantageous to secure access by road
through the other riparian state. This leads to problems of jusidiction in
police, armed forces, utilities, etc.
In short, although the political unit may strech across the waterbody
without break to the fragment on the far bank, the everyday administration,
the nuts and bolts of exercising sovereignty, are compromised by the
fragmentation, and the most sensible, practical means available if relations
permit is the obtianing of access through the other int.
Thus such fragments act as enclaves. There is no legal requirement for
access through the other riparian state, as there is with an enclave. But
practicalities prevail.
Looking at a map, small beachheads on the far banks of the Mississippi look
just as irrational to a layman as an enclave.
David's position may be more correct on a theoretic/philosophic basis, but
the extent of territorial waters with respect to maritime areas is hardly a
fixed distance, it has changed and nations do arbitatily change what they
claim. China claims the entire Taiwan Strait as terriitorial waters (at
least according to the Melbourne Age today). Other naitons claim 3 or 12 or
other nautical miles. Thus what today may be an enclave for David may not be
later. Such a temporally-dependent definition is fine theoretically, but
[and I can't bleieve i am arguing this!] the practical issues of riparian
and insular fragments woudl seem more important. What looks like an enclave
on a map and functionsl ike an enclave must be considered in any study of
fragmentation and enclaves. It may not be a true enclave, and I am not
arguuing it is, I argue for a continuum of cases, of which true enclaves are
the most extreme, and a nice flat, circular terrestrial country the other,
ideal extreme.
In sbnetween are different degrees of fragmentation. Island are one. the
barrier to communication and access and administration that a river or lake
or strait or swamp or whatever provides is significant and important.
Fragmentation is interesting because it creates administrative issues. That
is why possessions and dependencies a long distance omfr the motherland have
autonomous administrations: Pitcairn or Aruba or Tahiti or Hongkong or
whatever.

BW



>From: David Mark <dmark@...>
>To: Barry Smith <phismith@...>
>CC: Brendan Whyte <brwhyte@...>
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] clave census etc
>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>I think we could probably agree on a single 'clave ONTOLOGY, but then the
>disagreement is which terms apply to which distinguishable cases.
>
>Then again, I do not think we should distinguish fully territorial waters
>from land (since the whole 'clave thing is part of the world of fiat
>objects), whereas Brendan does pay attention to land/water.
>
>David
>
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> > did you send this also to Brendan?
> > it would nice to see the two alternative clave-ontologies laid out for
> > comparison
> >
> > At 07:11 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I think we would need to have some sory of poll or vote on the issues
>of
> > >terminology, since I seem to disagree with Brendan on a lot of this and
>I
> > >feel that my opinion is equal to his, not greater but not less.
> > >
> > >Maybe a first step would be a complete enumeration of the KINDS of
> > >international 'claves and fragments based on ontological and mereo-
> > >topological grounds. Then we could 'debate' how to group them and what
>to
> > >call them.
> > >
> > >David
> > >
> > >On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
> > >
> > > > brendan
> > > > your recent mention of the sealess coastal enclave on cyprus
> > > > & your reference to offshore dependencies in the followup message
> > > > raise several old & new questions involving claves & territorial
>seas
> > > > which i hope you &or others will also be able to answer
> > > > if not absolutely now then at least somehow sometime
> > > > possibly in the following order of importance or interest
> > > >
> > > > first
> > > > how many world class claves are there really
> > > > & how might they be most sensibly grouped into the subcategories of
> > > > enclaves & exclaves & fragments
> > > > &or any other subcategories
> > > > & can they all be listed by their individual natural names yet
> > > > or by any other generally recognizable names
> > > >
> > > > in other words are we in reach of a first global clave census &
>roster
> > > > as we are for the countries of the world themselves
> > > > & as we have already tried for the tricountry points etc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > second
> > > > would the above questions be answered any differently if adjacent
> > > > territorial seas were considered integral parts of those coastal
>clave
> > > > territories that have them
> > > > just as much as they are integral to the so called metropolitan
>areas or
> > > > nuclear territories of coastal & archipelagic countries generally
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > third
> > > > do you really mean by the term fragments to invoke the idea of
>fracturing &
> > > > breaking
> > > > & to imply that these entities have actually been broken or have
>broken
> > > > or are broken or are being broken in some sense
> > > >
> > > > or is all that just my own subjective gloss upon this word
> > > >
> > > > for wouldnt some term that is less suggestive of disintegration &
> > > disruption
> > > > while still conveying the idea of partition & separation
> > > > such as outer lands or outlying areas or particles for
>example
> > > > be more faithful to clave reality & more generally helpful &
>ameliorative
> > > >
> > > > or for referring equally to both claves & their metro areas
> > > > some term like compartments or co parts or installments
> > > > or even tho seemingly contrarian contiguities continuities
> > > continua etc
> > > >
> > > > but also
> > > > since i am still unsure what new distinctions you mean to make by
> > > > introducing the term fragments
> > > > & would like to understand this better
> > > > dont the 3 traditional terms enclave & exclave & metropolitan area
>alone
> > > > suffice to cover all eventualities
> > > > if used correctly
> > > >
> > > > m
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >That would seem right.
> > > > >Not counting Nagorno or Palestinian west bank, Tibet, or SMOM:
> > > > >
> > > > >triple-landlocked: 0 countries, 1 enclave, one
>counter-counter-enclave.
> > > > >= 2 fragments
> > > > >
> > > > >double-landlocked
> > > > >2 doubly landlocked countries, Liechtenstein and Uzkebistan. And
>other
> > > > >doubly landlocked enclaves include Campione, Busingen, the 7 dutch
> > > > >counter-enclaves at Baarle, the russian enclave in Belarus, the 5
>enclaves
> > > > >of armenia and Azerbaijan (Nagorno doesn't count as it is not
> > > recognised as
> > > > >Armenian or independent), the counter enclave at Madha in the
>UAE,the 6
> > > > >other Ferghana enclaves and the 21 Pakistani and 3 Indian counter
> > > enclaves.
> > > > >= 2 countries, 14 enclaves & 32 counter-enclaves
> > > > >= 2 countries and 46 fragments.
> > > > >
> > > > >single-landlocked
> > > > >39 countries, 23 enclaves at Baarle, Llivia, 5 at Monschau, 3 at
>Cyprus [1
> > > > >is already on the sea, although it has no territorial sea of its
>own]
> > > > >Nakihichevan, Madha.
> > > > >= 39 countries, 33 enclaves , 1 other fragment (Nakhichevan).
> > > > >= 39 countries, 34 fragments
> > > > >
> > > > >Unlandlocked:
> > > > >approx 200 countries.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>From: granthutchison@...
> > > > >>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Triple land-locking
> > > > >>Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:11:43 -0000
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Here's a random thought that has just come to me. I think there
>are
> > > > >>probably only two triple land-locked territories in the world -
>areas
> > > > >>from which you can't reach the sea without crossing three national
> > > > >>boundaries. One is the (pretty obvious) third-order Indian enclave
>in
> > > > >>Bangladesh, and the other is the Tajik enclave in Uzbekistan.
> > > > >>Does anyone else find that at all interesting?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Grant
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> > > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> > > > ><http://www.hotmail.com> http://www.hotmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >
> ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1393724.2979175.2/D=egroupmail/S=17001261
> > > 66:N/A=55> >0983/?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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Department of Philosophy, 130 Park Hall, University at Buffalo, NY 14260
> > Fax 419 781 8794
>http://philosophy.buffalo.edu/faculty/smith
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com