Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] clave census etc
Date: May 01, 2001 @ 01:00
Author: David Mark (David Mark <dmark@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Brendan Whyte wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>