Subject: Re: global clave census in progress
Date: May 09, 2001 @ 07:50
Author: Peter Smaardijk ("Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@h...> wrote:
> The problem with Gibraltar is Spain doesn't recognize it. And
Morocco
> doesn't recognize Ceuta. So whose waters are there is a moot point.
> See O'Reilly, 1994 "Ceuta and the spanish sovereign territories",
IBRU
> Boundary and Territory Briefing 1994. Map p34 has 3mile and 12 mile
limits
> marked, along with waters of gib, Spain, Moroccoa and Ceuta. At
3cmiles
> there is no problem. At 12 there is. What appears to be
equidistancel ines
> at sea for the 4 units are also shown.
> BW
>
>
> >From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: global clave census in progress
> >Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 06:49:33 -0000
> >
> >In this story the figure 12 nautical miles is constantly mentioned,
> >but I think it has to be mentioned too that this is not just 12 nm
> >from the coast line; it is from the base line, and this base line
> >could be different (cutting off of bays, river mouths, etc.) Also
the
> >claimed status of archipelagic country plays a role here, too. I
> >don't know whether there are, anywhere in the world, enclaved bits
of
> >high sea within a single entity of territorial waters (i.e.
belonging
> >to one country), but they seem very unlikely to me. On the other
> >hand, these things _can_ happen with regards to the 200 nm limit,
> >with EEZ's. One example is the so-called "peanut hole" in the Sea
of
> >Okhotsk.
> >
> >And I don't know whether Ceuta and mainland Spain are linked
through
> >Spanish territorial waters, just because they are less than 24 nm
> >apart. This is the Gibraltar strait, after all, and because it is a
> >very important strait, there might be other rules applied here.
> >Perhaps I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. Anyway, free
> >passing of ships should be assured somehow (which is the case in
> >terr. waters anyway, as I recall), but perhaps some special status
is
> >given to these important straits. There are definitely such
> >regulations for the all-Turkish Bosporus and Dardanelles. Does
anyone
> >know anything more on this subject?
> >
> >Peter S.
> >
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
> > > since we now have good reason to expect accurate bengal clave
> >counts later
> > > this year from brendan
> > >
> > > & since we are not aware of any other outstanding de jure
clave
> >count
> > > problems anywhere else in the dry world
> > >
> > > & since we can postpone consideration of de facto claves &
> >disputed
> > > territories generally
> > > seeing as these are ontologically distinct types or entities
> > >
> > > & since we can separate our counts of the landlubbing from the
high
> >seas claves
> > > just to keep everyone assuaged & engaged
> > > even if the two types are not ontologically distinct
> > >
> > > & since we can also probably sort out the entire maritime world
for
> > > ourselves now
> > > by simply assuming the global standard of 12nm of territoral
seas
> >everywhere
> > > even if such a regime is not yet strictly in force absolutely
> >everywhere
> > >
> > > & since we can also ignore or at least postpone consideration
of
> >the so
> > > called human heritage area &or everyones land
> > > by temporarily assuming that all whole countries embedded in the
> >high seas
> > > & all metro areas & claves of countries embedded in the high
seas
> >are
> > > actually embedded in some as yet unspecified ontological entity
> > > a somewhat awkward decision taken nevertheless in the interest
of
> >moving
> > > forward
> > >
> > > & since we can consider the paucity of preliminary comment to be
> >good news
> > > both as an index of consensus & a harbinger of ease &
simplicity
> > > while still inviting & expecting additional input from all
> > > & at any phase of the work in progress whatsoever
> > >
> > > it is possible as well as pleasing to proceed now
> > > in anticipation of the timely arrivals of all the missing data &
> >necessary
> > > corrections
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > so first of all i would like to adopt the full list of the 192
best
> > > available consensus countries as provided by grant in message
2270
> > > & to define these as the full set of sovereign entities
> > > while allowing for any changes that may occur
> > > whether due to world events or to our own review
> > >
> > >
> > > lets just say for the time being that either grant atop the
list
> >or the
> > > empty space at the end of the list stands for the mentioned
> >unspecified
> > > entity
> > > a possible 193rd &or first among coequal members of the
> >mereotopological
> > > set embodying full global surface coverage
> > >
> > > this happens to coincide with a multinationally recognized
> >federative territory
> > > if not yet an actual federative entity like the united nations
which
> > > engendered it
> > > & it is clearly ontologically distinct from all the 192 other
> >members of
> > > the set
> > > & which it may actually come to subsume in their ongoing
> >confederation
> > > just like the federal districts &or federal territories of
federal
> >countries
> > >
> > > so the 192 either become federal in relation to it
> > > or they continue as parts of the same whole yet without any
> >relation to its
> > > overwhelmingly greatest part
> > >
> > > but such loose ends as these reflect matters of ontology rather
than
> > > mereotopology
> > > & for now they can be arranged to suit any tastes or beliefs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > the first matter of actual clave typology i think will be to
> >recognize the
> > > varieties of ways in which any of these 192 or 193 sovereign
> >entities
> > > either manifests itself as sovereign territory anywhere on the
> >planetary
> > > surface
> > > or else has its sovereign territory interrupted by anothers
> > >
> > > in other words to simply identify & count all the territorial
> >patches of &
> > > all the territorial holes within all these various modalities
of
> >sovereign
> > > territoriality
> > >
> > >
> > > as for drawing ontological distinctions among the claves
themselves
> > > rather than purely mereotopological ones
> > > i think that concern is postponable if not a dead issue
> > > since all sets of territorial & administrative subdivisions
comprise
> > > entities that are distinct & distinguishable from the members of
> >all other
> > > ontological sets
> > >
> > > even the likeliest of their common characteristics
> > > specifically their hierarchical subdivisional rank
> > > is often a very flakey & unsatisfactory index of commonality
> > >
> > >
> > > it should not be necessary to detain ourselves over how these
> >patches of
> > > territory are constituted or organized by &or within their
> >subsuming entity
> > > but only that they are somehow subsumed by it
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > so of de jure exclaves
> > > including all patches generally
> > > there appear to be the following 8 or 9 most basic types
> > >
> > > 0 metropolitan patches even if not normally considered exclaves
> > > such as spain with ceuta since they evidently form a
single
> >12nm patch
> > > or such as the entire maltese archipelago similarly 1 patch
> > > or even such as san marino not more nor less than a single
> >patch
> > > thus including possible subtypologies 0a & 0c & 0l
> > > to distinguish such archipelagic & coastal &
> >landlocked subtypes
> > > but with all assigned a 0 status for equally easy dismissal
up
> >front
> > > & trotted out here only tentatively & apologetically
> > > since few people would consider metropatch & exclave as
> >ontologically
> > > the same
> > >
> > > but anyway to continue with or to begin the actual typology
> > >
> > > 1 fully embedded enclave exclaves such as llivia
> > > 2 doubly embedded such as found only in baarle & bengal
> > > 3 triply embedded unique to bengal
> > > 4 boundary crossed peneexclave such as jungholz or the baarle
pair
> > > 5 fully surrounded by land patches such as andorra or
nakhichevan
> > > 6 partly abutted by high seas such as melilla or cabinda or
> >redonda
> > > with some typologically negligible distinctions possible
> > > 7 unabutted except by high seas such as alboran or other
islands
> >with
> > > 12nm seas
> > > 8 condominial semiclave such as ile de la conference possibly
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > & of de jure enclaves
> > > there appear to be the following 9 or 10 most basic types
> > >
> > > 0 an absence of holes or the presence of an integrity
> > > again dispensable for anyone who wishes to ignore it
> > >
> > > & to continue or begin the real typology of these
> > >
> > > 1 embedded country such as san marino
> > > 2 embedded exclave such as llivia
> > > including exclaves embedded also in territorial waters
> > > such as the coastal cypriot enclave in uk sov base
> > > & possibly campione &or malawi
> > > 3 doubly embedded exclave baarle & bengal
> > > 4 triply embedded unique bengal
> > > 5 boundary crossed peneenclave such as jungholz or the baarle
pair
> > > 6 whole country fully embedded in high seas
> > > such as malta
> > > 7 metropatch fully embedded in high seas
> > > such as antigua & barbuda
> > > 8 exclave island or group fully embedded in high seas
> > > such as alboran
> > > 9 embedded condominial semiclave such as ile de la conference
> >possibly
> > >
> > >
> > > note
> > > in case anyone was worried that the recognition of island claves
> >dilutes
> > > the meaning of claves beyond recognition
> > > it is probably worth emphasizing that the great majority of
islands
> >&
> > > groups will not form separate patches but will simply combine &
> >blend in
> > > with continental coastal areas &or other islands within 24nm of
them
> > >
> > > it is only the most isolated of islands & groups
> > > representing a minuscule fraction of all islands
> > > that will fall outside the 24nm margin & produce separate
patches
> >of territory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > of course even assuming the above typology is technically
> >adequate it
> > > still fails to consider de facto & disputed cases
> > > so until we can somehow at some point account for these also
> > > as for example by including them indiscriminately in terra
nullius
> > > or by carefully elaborating adequate typologies for them
all too
> > > we will necessarily be in denial of such patches as really do
exist
> >in
> > > places like the spratly islands & turkish cyprus & all the
united
> >nations
> > > peacekeeping & other administrative areas worldwide
> > >
> > > but all such considerations seem eminently deferrable for now at
> >least
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > in any case
> > > just to test the analysis & start the survey
> > > & without necessarily vouching for any of the data
> > > here is a nominally random sample but a fair swipe
> > >
> > > 1
> > > afghanistan is landlocked & unbroken
> > > hence all in one patch & with no holes
> > > hence it is typologically only 0exclave 0enclave
> > > or 0x 0n
> > >
> > > 2
> > > albania is coastal & unbroken
> > > with no remote islands
> > > hence all in one patch & with no holes
> > > 0x 0n
> > >
> > > 3
> > > algeria is coastal & unbroken
> > > with no remote islands
> > > 0x 0n
> > >
> > > 4
> > > andorra is landlocked & unbroken
> > > 0x 0n
> > >
> > > 5
> > > angola is coastal with a coastal exclave & no enclaves
> > > & no remote islands
> > > 0x 6x 0n
> > >
> > > 6
> > > antigua & barbuda is archipelagic & comprises 2 patches
> > > a metropatch enclosing both of these islands
> > > & a separate redonda island exclave
> > > 0x 6x 7x 0n 7n
> > >
> > > 7
> > > argentina is coastal & unbroken
> > > with no remote islands or other patches
> > > assuming claims to the falklands & antarctica are irrelevant
> > > hence all in 1 patch & with no holes
> > > 0x 0n
> > >
> > > 8
> > > armenia is landlocked & has artsvashen exclave enclaved in
> >azerbaijan
> > > excluding de facto nagorno karabakh from de jure consideration
> > > & is host to 2 or 3 azeri exclaves of uncertain status
> > > depending on whether you believe the cia or rolf
> > > but preferring to believe rolf
> > > hence simply 2 patches of which the metro one has 3 holes
> > > 0x 1x 2n3
> > >
> > > 9
> > > australia is technically archipelagic & appears to comprise 29
> >patches
> > > assuming antarctic claims are irrelevant
> > > counting as follows
> > > 1 metropatch incl tasmania
> > > 1 king island
> > > 1 ashmore & cartier assuming drying reefs intervene
> > > 1 christmas i
> > > 1 cocos is
> > > 1 norfolk i etc
> > > 1 heard & mcdonald is
> > > 1 rowley shoals
> > > 14 coral sea islands & groups
> > > 7 boigu & saibai & 5 other island group claves within papuan
waters
> > > hence 0x1 1x7 7x21 0n 8n21
> > >
> > > 10
> > > austria is landlocked & unbroken but for jungholz
> > > 0x 4x 0n
> > >
> > > 11
> > > azerbaijan is coastal & has nakhichevan unembedded exclave
> > > & 3 other exclaves embedded in armenia
> > > 0x1 1x3 5x1 2n
> > >
> > >
> > > 12
> > > bahamas is archipelagic & has 10 patches of which 2 abut cuba
> > > 0x1 6x2 7x8 0n 7n1 8n7
> > >
> > > 13
> > > bahrain is technically archipelagic & appears unbroken
> > > following the recent icj decision
> > > 0x 0n
> > >
> > > 14
> > > bangladesh is coastal with 51 first order & 21 second order
exclaves
> > > & has 111 first order holes with 3 second order & 1 third order
hole
> > > with a possible boundary cross
> > > all per a recent surmise & subject to change as mentioned
> > > 0x 1x51 2x21 4x1 2n111 3n3 4n1
> > >
> > > 15
> > > barbados is an island & unbroken
> > > 0x 7x 0n 6n
> > >
> > > 16
> > > belarus is landlocked was recently said to have a russian
exclave
> >embedded
> > > in it
> > > 0x 2n
> > >
> > > 17
> > > belgium is coastal & has 22 exclaves enclaved in holland
> > > including 1 or 2 with a boundary cross
> > > & has embedded within it 1 primary & 7 secondary exclaves of
holland
> > > & 5 primary exclaves of germany
> > > 0x1 1x22 4x1 2n6 3n7
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > as good a place as any to pause
> > > & take a peek at the growing tabulations
> > > consider possible improvements etc
> > >
> > >
> > > no co 0x 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 0n 1n 2n 3n 4n 5n 6n 7n 8n
9n
> > >
> > > 01 af 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 02 al 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 03 dz 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 04 ad 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 05 ao 01 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 06 ag 01 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 01 00
00
> > > 07 ar 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 08 am 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 003 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 09 au 01 07 00 00 00 00 00 21 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 21
00
> > > 10 at 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 11 az 01 03 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 001 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 12 bs 01 00 00 00 00 00 02 08 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 00 01 07
00
> > > 13 bh 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 14 bd 01 51 21 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 111 03 01 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 15 bb 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 01 00 000 00 00 00 01 00 00
00
> > > 16 by 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001 00 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > > 17 be 01 22 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 006 07 00 00 00 00 00
00
> > >
> > > totals
> > > so far 17 84 21 01 02 01 04 31 00 11 00 122 10 01 00 01 02 28
00
> > >
> > >
> > > anyway just a scouting party
> > > but what does anyone think
> > > & where to from here
> > >
> > > m
> >
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
___
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com