1. maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    There seems to be some confusion among members of the group concerning the nature and extent of state sovereignty and jurisdiction offshore. I hope the
    Mar 13, 2001 @ 09:59 - m.a.pratt@durham.ac.uk (m.a.pratt@...)
  2. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    would st pierre & miquelon meet the strict definition you mention below m i mean while we are out here between nova scotia & newfoundland with doug
    Mar 13, 2001 @ 17:47 - michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
  3. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    ... Thanks Martin. Enclaves are most useful when considered for areas of equal/similar sovereignty, ie EITHER internal units OR nations, OR EEZs/Highseas, etc.
    Mar 13, 2001 @ 22:47 - Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
  4. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    a very telling point here by brendan so lets not mix oranges & apples any more from where the sun now stands i will no longer mention eez tripoints in the same
    Mar 14, 2001 @ 04:47 - michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
  5. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    But this is strange. The width of the band of territorial waters is the same from the islands as from the shore, I would think. The terr. waters of such an
    Mar 14, 2001 @ 10:09 - Peter Smaardijk (Peter Smaardijk <peter.smaardijk@...>)
  6. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    From the sketch maps, the Terr waters of some of the islands closed into a point which met the high seas. Thus there was a point connection with high seas for
    Mar 14, 2001 @ 23:06 - Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
  7. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    Peter, I think you are exactly correct, which is why such territorial sea enclaves are so rare, perhaps totally non-existent. The 12-mile french territorial
    Mar 18, 2001 @ 14:14 - David Mark (David Mark <dmark@...>)
  8. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    i agree too & that is precisely why the outcome of this past fridays icj decision is so potentially groundbreaking er i mean such a potential watershed
    Mar 18, 2001 @ 16:19 - michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
  9. Re: maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    I can only think of cases where there is already an area of territorial waters defined, but then some sort of an exception is made for the sovereignty of an
    Mar 18, 2001 @ 17:39 - peter.smaardijk@and.com (peter.smaardijk@...)
  10. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    seems right to me also i just went back over the summary of the icj judgment tho i didnt read all the dissents etc & could easily have misunderstood what i did
    Mar 18, 2001 @ 19:46 - michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
  11. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    No, i don t think so. The islands were only just offshore. Namibia will include them within her baselines and so claim 12nm from the islands. S.Africa included
    Mar 19, 2001 @ 00:06 - Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
  12. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    I still don t see it. In that case, from the Namibian perspective, these islands are Namibian (they are included within the base line). So no South-African
    Mar 20, 2001 @ 08:05 - Peter Smaardijk (Peter Smaardijk <peter.smaardijk@...>)
  13. Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    Exactly, this was the problem. Just like S.Afr claimed Walvis Bay for 4 years, 1990-94, then finally gave it back. The islands were also a source of
    Mar 20, 2001 @ 22:26 - Brendan Whyte ("Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@...>)
  14. Re: maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
    Boudewijn Büch (Eilanden, 8th reprint of the 2nd., improved ed., 1996) talks about his pursuits to find any information on this geographic oddity. The name of
    Mar 21, 2001 @ 09:53 - peter.smaardijk@and.com (peter.smaardijk@...)