Subject: Re: Gideon Biger - reply to BW+query!
Date: Jun 15, 2001 @ 15:27
Author: bjbutler@bjbsoftware.com (bjbutler@...)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


Another related issue involves extreme points with man-made
extensions. The southernmost point in New Jersey is ambiguous.
There are two breakwaters extending from two points on the same
beach. The eastern breakwater extends further south by few meters,
but the western breakwater is attached to a point on the beach a few
meters south of the corresponding point on the eastern breakwater.
Which of these is the southernmost point of "land" in NJ? Teh map
showing this situtaion is at http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?
z=18&e=505638&n=4308632&s=25&size=s. I have been to both points and
still cannot make up my mind.

BJB

--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> Mmm... there we go again (you're going to keep the scores, David?).
> My (personal, needless to say) opinion is that the border in the
> tunnel depends entirely on the nature of the border on the ground
or
> in the water above the tunnel. So: internal water -> land bdy.,
terr.
> water -> +/- equal to land bdy., etc. I think that in this case the
> legal status of the territory, be it dry or wet, doesn't change
(but
> perhaps I'm wrong).
>
> The same goes for bridges (they can bridge water _and_ land, of
> course).
>
> Most the polders in the Netherlands were made before all these
legal
> nautical zones were implemented, or just didn't effect them (the
ones
> in the Zuiderzee, which, together with the nl part of the Wadden
Sea,
> was internal water, before it was closed by the Afsluitdijk). There
> are some places that are more recent _and_ could have an effect on
> the zones: the piers at IJmuiden, and those at the Hook of Holland,
> combined with the Rotterdam harbour extension plan called the
> Maasvlakte.
>
> This is an interesting question. The normal reaction would be that
> the 12 nm limit adapts to the new coastline. But then the
Netherlands
> would unilaterally annex parts that are outside of it. Luckily it
has
> no effect on the EEZ. But somewhere else in the world it could well
> have, after all we don't have the monopoly on polders and
landfills.
> Are countries, by "unilaterally" extending their territory, allowed
> to take pieces of "everyones land" as well? Any opinions on this
from
> anyone?
>
> I remember this problem from the Bidasoa/Txingudi question we
> discussed a couple of months ago: are the French infringing on the
> condominium by reclaiming part of it (which they did, to build most
> of the seaside resort of Hendaia/Hendaye-Plage). Or was there an
> additional international agreement on this? I haven't found such a
> document (yet). There was such an agreement on the expansion of a
> small refuge harbour on the Spanish side, in Hondarribia.
>
> Peter S.
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., David Mark <dmark@g...> wrote:
> > Personally, I would count a tunnel as a land boundary-- why not?
> > (Not a bridge, and I'm not sure about a causeway.)
> >
> > It is now 1 to 1, what do the rest of you say?
> >
> > A key point would be, what law applies? Does building a causeway
> change
> > the three-mile limit at all? What about coastal landfills, or
> drainage
> > projects? Did the dykes and polders of the Netherlands change
> their 3
> > mile limits at all?
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Brendan Whyte wrote:
> >
> > > I would not count a bridge or causeway as a land boundary, any
> more than the
> > > chunnel. Thus Singapore is an island, as is Bahrain, and
Denmark
> has one
> > > land border.
> > > Interesting special cases but not proper land boundaries.
> > > BW
> > >
> > > >From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Gideon Biger - reply to BW+query!
> > > >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:31:59 -0000
> > > >
> > > >Is this a land border? A sea border? Or an air space border? A
> border
> > > >on a bridge is peculiar...
> > > >
> > > >If it is within the 12 nm zone of both countries, I would say
it
> is
> > > >above territorial waters. So if not a land border, then
something
> > > >very similar. But I don't think this Gideon Biger counts
> boundaries
> > > >in terr. water as land boundaries. He would count boundaries in
> > > >internal water as such (incl. all sea inside of the baseline).
> But I
> > > >don't have his book here, so what do I know...
> > > >
> > > >Peter S.
> > > >
> > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Mats Hessman <Mats@l...> wrote:
> > > > > > don't fret about your country only having one border.
After
> > > > > > all, Australia
> > > > > > is no-Biger than yours!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >Well, Brendan, I guess you're right, DK most
> > > > > > >certainly deserves no more than one copy...
> > > > > > >having only one boundary line...
> > > > >
> > > > > I must protest! From June 2000 Denmark is entitled
> > > > > to another copy of Biger.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take a look at the non-wet boundary marker on
> > > > > Peter's own site (!) at
> > > > > http://www.geocities.com/mafiapetedk/bordersweden2.html.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mats
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
______________________________________________________________________
> ___
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >