Subject: Re: Straddling - US-CA - 300 buildings
Date: May 08, 2003 @ 18:06
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> If we revisit the Vennbahn, the question remains open as to thenature
> of the bridges carrying the Belgian railway and the depth towhich the
> Belgian border goes below the railway track bed to the Germanroads
> that pass underneath. The claim is made that there are fiveexclaves
> of Germany on the western side of the Belgian tracks, yet,maps show
> conflicting borders and nobody has been able to say if Germanthe
> sovereignty over the roads passing under the bridges that carry
> tracks is interrupted for the 5 meter width of the railway trackbed
> passing above and perpendicular to the road. Treaties saythat
> sovereignty over the rail line rests with Belgium, but doesn'tseem to
> address how deeply into the earth that sovereignty extends.borders -
>
> In the past, we have seen at least two examples of vertical
> one in Steinstuecken after the East Germans ceded apassage for a road
> to West Berlin, and another, at Herbesthal, now in Belgium.Prior to
> WWII, when Germany had Eupen and Malmedy, the borderbetween Belgium
> and Germany was at Herbesthal, where the tracks passedunder a neutral
> bridge, but there was no neutral area under the bridge throughwhich
> the railway tracks passed. I have a photo of this, and I don'tfully
> understand it, because even "neutral" areas have "titularsovereigns"
> who ultimately, upon extinction of the neutrality, would "regain"zone
> sovereignty over the area, such as is the case with the neutral
> separating Spain from Gibraltar. It is "really" Spain's, andSpain
> has, citing it's sovereign rights, many times encroached upon itand
> narrowed it to the point where, today (last I saw), it's about ameter
> or two wide.conquering
>
> Also, in former East Germany, we must remember that the
> western allies established their sovereignty over the aircorridors
> between West Germany and W. Berlin - and they were tubes -there were
> maximum and minimum elevations where the westernairspace ended.
> There was an instance of a crash of a PanAm flight in EastGermany
> just outside of W. Berlin, but inside the roughly circular portionof
> the corridor that permitted allied planes maneuvering roomover the
> western part of the city. The allies were not permitted to travelreminded
> beyond the area that was the Soviet sector of E. Berlin into E.
> Germany proper to aid at the crash site. The East Germans
> the allies that the plane, once it descended below the loweraltitude
> limit of the air corridor, it had entered E. German airspace andhad
> subsequently landed on E. Germany soil outside of Berlin.They
> refused to let western authorities get to the site.Are there
>
> Lastly, let's consider a "bridge in reverse". Who holds the
> sovereignty over the "Chunnel" between France and the UK?
> uninterupted international waters from the SW - NE ends of theEnglish
> channel, or is internationality at the surface of the watertube
> interrupted because the sovereignty for the length of the tunnel
> extends in the width of the tunnel upwards forever? How comemaps of
> France and the UK never show their international bordersextending
> into the channel for the length of the tunnel over which each is<orc@o...> wrote:
> sovereign? Is the area of the Chunnel a condominium?
>
> LN
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> > wonderfulgo
> > tho how can i be wrong just to doubt this
> > based on the evidence presented til now
> > which i believe has consisted entirely of busted rumors
> >
> > & of course i would love to see any real examples
> > in pix &or treaties
> > or however else you might bring them to bear
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Karolis B."
> > <kbajoraz@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but other than that single hope
> > > > i rather doubt vertical borders or any kind of vertical
> > > differentiation
> > > > of sovereignty can be pointed to as a present reality
> > anywhere in
> > > > the world today
> > >
> > > Here you are wrong Mike. Tho I give 0 credibility to that
> > apartment
> > > building story and Len's case involves administration, not
> > > sovereignty, all Lithuanian border teaties establish that the
> > border
> > > in water constructions (such as bridges, dams, lake drains
> > and stuff)
> > > do not follow the border there vertically present, but instead
> > > trough the physical axis (middle) of such constructions. Sofor
> > > example (and there must be a whole bunch of thesecases)
> > there's acan
> > > river, somwhere around the middle is the border line. We
> > extendair
> > > the border line to ground depths and air and it makes the
> > > border "wall". However there is a bridge suspended in the
> > and theLithuanian
> > > middle of the bridge doesn't match exactly the borderline
> > below, thus
> > > causing an iterruption of the border wall. A piece of
> > > bridge slammed two meters trough the Russian wall andstuff
> > likearea
> > > that. Sadly, it is impossible to be in this disturbed border
> > asbut
> > > it is only INSIDE the bridge. Even if you would try to make a
> > hole in
> > > the bridge, the hole would then not be a part of the bridge
> > > become air space and follow the normal border. Veryweird,
> > yes, butor
> > > this is not referred to in any terms of exceptional conditions
> > > anything, the border treaties simply say that BORDER inwater
> > > constructions is the axes of such.