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
--- 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >