>Thanks Martin! So Ceuta and Spain could very well be linked by
>Spanish territorial sea.
According to the map in O'Reilly they are.
>
>You mentioning the fact that the states adjoining the Strait of
>Gibraltar may not under any circumstances impede the free passage of
>ships brought me to another (maybe only slightly similar) issue: on
>dry land, sometimes a road or railroad, 'belonging' to one country (I
>mean it is exclusively used by that country, and probably belongs to
>it as well, although it could very well not be the case) passes
>through another country. Some examples (probably not all of the same
>category):
>
>The Dutch road N274 from Koningsbosch to Brunssum, passing through
>Germany but never actually level-crossing a German road (no junctions
>either). With other words: you can't get off this road while in
>Germany. This is a legacy from the time the Selfkant was Dutch
>(although at that time, there probably were normal road crossings).
[...etc]
Agreements over roads/rail are different to at sea, because at sea it is
international law that dictates the litoral states have to allow passage.
Any two countries can come up with an agreement regarding access and roads
etc between themselves, which is purely bilateral. There were several roads
and rilas cut by the formaiton of Eatst Pakistan, and neither country has
budged on the 'infringement to national integrity/sovereignty/security' that
allowing passage would supposedly entail. Look at the fuss over Tin bigha
where transit was a right under interational law. People were killed
protesting over that one.
There was even a dispute over a small section (a few hundred metres if that)
of a railline in Eastern East Pakistan, that cut through a tiny peninsula of
Tripura. India caused trouble over this, so in the end it was agreed that
India give up its land on the western side of the rial line, and the rial
bed itself to 10m east of the line. A total of 75 acres. Yet this is still
trotted out in parliament in India as an unreciprocated appeasement by
nationalist hardliners.
The rail line from Calcutta to Assam used to go through what is now
Bangladesh to cooch Behar state, then head east cutting across the Kurigram
slaient (the easternmost of the three prongs of Bangladesh in the north) and
into Assam. this was cut at partition, and there have been frequent calls
for the reinstatement of transit across the piece cutting through Kurigram,
under 8.5miles (14km). There are no branches, and the transit would be
beneficial to India, and surely to Bangladesh, but the bit in Kurigram
remained abandoned, unitl pulled up by Bangladesh some years ago.
So there is no compulsion to allow terrestrial access. When a country splits
along old administrative, or other, lines, and some communication routes are
left ipartially on one side but of use only to the other, no doubt some
agreement is usually reached, but it depends on the countries and their
relations. Inb Europe, it works, elsewhere it doesn't. There is no
necessity for Canada to allow terrestrial transit to Pt Roberts or Angle
INlet, they only do because it is of benefit to them, if not directly, then
out of wider diplomatic/friendly neighbourliness.
BW
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com