Exactly! a state with many islands is less than ideal for administration
purposes, of course if most of the islands are tiny and uninhabited, there
is less of a problem. When you have an inhabited archipelago, like the
Philippines, you automatically have greater adminsitrative and
communications costs than say Nauru or Lesotho, nice circular, compact
units.

When Cooch Behar was a 'country', it had the same administrative problems
that the Philippines does now. Lots of 'islands', some with people some
without, to administer.
The Philippines has to overcome the barriers imposed by the sea, making
communications slower, more expensive and more difficult. There is,
hoewever, only the natural barrier to overcome. there is no otherpo litical
unit in the way ith whom access for communcation has to be negotiated,
leased, bnought, exchanged etc.
Cooch Behar, and now India/Bangladesh, have a similar problem, leaving out
the problems of the wide, meandering, braided , flooding rivers of the area.
Each state has many 'islands' to access and communicate with. They have a
right of access, one sdtate cannot deny the other accss. But the access must
be nogitiated, etc. It cannot be made unilaterally. however, the terrain is
flat, making roads, rails, poweer lines, etc, siple to biuild to these
'islands'. the situations are interestingly similar and complimentary at the
same time.

I consider an island in Lake Titicaca (say), a fragment. but so is the
Bolivian Copacobana peninsula, which is on the Perivian side of the lake.
Obviously the settlement on that peninsula is connected physically more
closely with Peru than Bolivia in terms of physical infrastructure, time,
cost and other factors. There may be political factors that make it quicker
to go to bolivia proper than pru, though, like difficult visa/customs
regimes. But looking at a map, it is 'illogical' for bolivia to own that
peninsula. Just as it is 'illogical' for Italy to Own Campione. Of course
Swiss waters surround Campione, while Bolivian waters connect Copacobana,
interestingly enough.
Islands are natural, and small islands would seem to natually belong to the
unit whose lake they are in or whose shore they are closest to (esp if only
just offshore).
Peneenclaves on the otherhand while not true enclaves, usually FUNCTION like
they are, as access is easiest, physically at last, through the other unit.
Why do US states, and the US and Mexico have agreements to swap fragments
created by river meanders, but not fragments created by damming lakes? Are
the dams seen as less permanent, so the fragments temporary?

as for Grant's question about Lesotho, i like the term "enclaved state",
showing that it is not an enclave, as it is not a fragment of a larger body.
But it has many of the, but not all, administrative problems of an enclave.

BW

>From: David Mark <dmark@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] clave census etc
>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:00:54 -0400 (EDT)
>
>If water makes an exclave, then every island is an exclave. 10,000
>exclaves in Minnesota, 100,000 in Manitoba, even more in Finland...
>Exclaves are extremely common, not odd at all.
>
>If an island in a lake is not an exclave of the state or county or
>province it is in, then it is totally illogical to consider the end of a
>peninsula on the opposite shore of a water body to be an exclave of the
>political unit on this shore.
>
>(in my opinion)
>
>David
>
>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/
> >
> >
> >
>

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