Subject: Re: Passing foreign territory
Date: May 10, 2001 @ 07:42
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:

> 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.


I am sorry if I have given you the impression that I thought it
wasn't different. I understand very well that it is.


> 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.


That seems reason enough for me, though. Unless you are a hot-headed
hard liner ready to give your last drop of blood for the defence of
the very first inch of soil, that is. Very straight, but very
unhealthy.


> BW
>


It looks like this is a typical matter that can be regulated as part
of a boundary treaty. After all, these things normally occur after a
boundary change has taken place, and are caused by it.

Peter S.