Subject: Re: cafr
Date: Dec 16, 2002 @ 16:53
Author: acroorca2002 <orc@orcoast.com> ("acroorca2002 <orc@...>" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Still, what remains here is the fact that the turning point is onthe
> coastline (at low tide) of an islet. Why would such a point havebeen
> chosen, and not, say, the centre of the islet or the highestpoint? In
> other words, the way it is sometimes done in Scandinavia.They could
> have done that, if the (maritime) boundary has no real meaningwhen it
> runs across land. It wouldn't have made any difference. Maybethe idea
> that some day this boundary running across dry land mightbecome a
> source of doubt (like here at BP) was playing in the heads ofthe
> people who thought this up after all. When you take the centralor
> highest point of an island, there is much more land to be indoubt over
> than there is in the actual situation.i follow & agree with all the above
>wet by
> Or maybe, being a point of a maritime boundary, it should be
> definition. And now it's wet, albeit only just.they even say off the coast rather than on the coast
>points
> Attached a little scheme of how I think the situation is at both
> we're talking about. Please tell me if I interpreted yourconclusions
> wrong.perfect & better than i could have done