Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Baikonur
Date: Nov 28, 2002 @ 17:06
Author: Andrew T. Patton ("Andrew T. Patton" <andrew@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>Wait a minute. When a sovereign leases territory from anotherIf you define sovereignty as control over the leased land, you would
>sovereign, that's minimally, a sharing of sovereigny, or a devolution
>of operation of sovereignty to the lessee by the lessor who then
>remains only the titular sovereign.
>
>Examples:Was that really an international border or an administrative line.
>Hong Kong. There was the part leased from China and the ceded part
>that was British but not leased.... the world drew the international
>border around both parts without differentiation.
>You and the US Courts would be in disagreement here. Several lawsuits
>
>Guantanamo Bay. No one can deny that the USA has de-facto sovereignty
>there and that the US allows Cuba no say-so there whatsoever. If the
>US ever were to abandon it's position, de jure titular sovereignty
>would resurface as the prime operator, and Cuba would probably
>reassert it's rights. I suppose the US could give Guantanamo to the
>British so they could run a Cyprus-like operation there instead of
>allowing Cuba to retake control. Cuba wouldn't be able to do much
>about that but engage in Panama-like agitation. If you can't assert
>your sovereignty against people who go beyond the terms of their
>leases, then you don't have much sovereignty to exercize. If you
>can't exercize your sovereignty over something you leased out, then
>effectively, sovereignty was transferred by virtue of the lease.