IF it DOES come from the 1815 Vienna treaty, remember that Moresnet did too,
because of the inability to reach any other compromise between Neth and
Prussia. Thus a land condominium, effectively neutral, to compliment the
riverine one(s).
BW
>From: Mats Hessman <blofeld_es@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: "'BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com'" <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] DELU condo research
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 21:21:25 +0200
>
>Colleagues,
>
>Based on the "Grenzvermessung Deutschland-Luxemburg..." it seems
>possible to throw forward the following postulates:
>
>The delu condominuim seems to have it's origin in the Main Document of
>the Treaty of Vienna following the Congress of Vienna 1815, which states
>that some (particularly wet) bordes between Pussia and the Netherlands
>shall
>be equally owned by the two states. This goes for the current wet border
>(Mosel-Sauer-Our), and for at least one unnamed road, and maybe for
>the Ribbach as well.
>
>The Main Document was a broad treaty, stating that the specifics should
>be sorted out by several future comissions-to-be-formed.
>
>The Prussian-Netherlands Border Commission draws on the Treaty of
>Vienna, and states in the Treaty of Aachen 1816 at least the following:
>
>- Mosel, Sauer and Our are jointly and equally owned by Prussia and
>the Netherlands.
>
>- Islands within these waters belong to either of the states, and are thus
>not condominial.
>
>- The community of Vianden shall not be divided, hence the dry border
>east of the community.
>
>Then there is the Protocol of Emmerich of 1816 (?, Peter?). This is a
>riddle,
>because it does not mention the condominium situation at all. The
>protocol mainly concerns the separation of the islands of Mosel-Sauer-Our,
>and specifically states that the border between the states follows the
>main channel of the waters.
>
>How to interpret this contradiction?
>
>Some help in interpreting this comes from the fact that when the Reich
>approached Luxemburg in the late thirties on a dissolvement of the
>condominium,
>Luxemburg answered that it was not sure that this was a bilateral question,
>since possibly all the parties of the Treaty of Vienna would have to be
>consulted. This suggest, I think, that at least the Treaty of Vienna, and
>possibly the Treaty of Aachen supersedes the Protocol of Emmerich,
>at least in the minds of the Luxemburgers. Then the second World War
>intervened before an agreement could be reached.
>
>In 1980 to 1984 the border was measured anew, and "refreshed". The
>following seems to be true:
>
>- There are two contigious parts of the condominium; north of Vianden and
>south of Vianden.
>
>- The "ends" of the condominia (the "trilines") are straight lines.
>
>- The condominium is limited by the line where land and water meet at
>normal water height (Mittelwasserstand).
>
>- There are dry parts of the condominium; several dams (large and tiny),
>locks, power plants, bridges, bridge fundaments and other installations.
>
>- The condominium extends below and above ground, in the same way
>as ordinary borders do.
>
>- The islands are now part of the condominium. This is based on
>praticality. Several of the islands mentioned in the Protocol of Emmerich
>exist no more, and others have formed.
>
>- The borders are amply marked. There are primary (52 pairs), secondary
>and tertiary border stones. At some bridges there are brass plates, at
>others tin plates as shown in Wolfgang's excellent document. Where the
>border traverses dry ground, such as at dams and locks and some bridges,
>there are small cast iron circular plates that Peter has shown us in
>previous
>messages. There is also a handful of metal bolts at selected places.
>
>Mats
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp