very tastefully done maestro
i am pretty sure there are actually at least 5 commonwealths in
the usa tho i cant name them all with confidence
i think i can promise tho that the full answer is surprising
since i am sure at least one of them is not a state
moreover none of the above or below diminishes arifs point
about exceptionalism in general
& its neglible or void effect on the much harder realities which we
boundarypointers have been considering boundaries &or
multipoints
the real difficulties of border shaving & shading lie primaily &
predominantly in the sea
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Meynell
<kevin@m...> wrote:
> Arif,
>
> >All dominions in british commonwealth are thought to be
countries and not
> >protectorates though their leader is the Queen.
>
> There is no question that they are different countries. This was
> established by the 1931 convention that created the
'Commonwealth of
> Nations' from the former dominions of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, South
> Africa and the Irish Free State (although Ireland never ratified
the
> decision and became a republic in 1937). Whilst the UK still
retained the
> theoretical right to pass certain legislation over these
countries, these
> rights were gradually abrogated over the years. Indeed, the
Canada Act of
> 1980 and the Australia Acts of 1986 removed any remaining
vestiges of
> jurisdiction by the UK Parliament over these countries (I think
this
> happened much earlier for South Africa).
>
> The fact that the UK (plus overseas territories) and twenty or so
other
> countries have the same head of state, is irrelevant to their
status as
> independent countries. Whilst it's true that certain other legal
ties still
> exist, such as right of appeal to the Privy Council (which is
group of
> advisors to the monarch who are drawn from the
Commonwealth nations), the
> decision to maintain such ties is up to each country in the
same way that
> countries choose to join the EU etc..
>
> I would agree that some countries such as Monaco and the
Vatican are not
> truly independent as their continued existence depends on a
treaty with
> another country. In the case of Monaco, under the terms of a
treaty signed
> in (I believe) the 1920s, the incumbent monarch must produce
a male heir to
> the throne, otherwise the country will become part of France. In
the case
> of the Vatican, I believe that Italy is responsible for security
(other
> than the Papal Guard).
>
> >We have assumed boundaries between the Germanys
though they were only a
> >zone divider.
>
> Were West and East Germany not considered to be separate
countries? I
> thought this was established sometime in the early-1970s.
>
> >Do you ever hear anybody saying that the MANY border is not
a state border
> >as Massachusetts is actually a commonwealth?
>
> I'm not an expert on US constitutional issues, but I think this is
more of
> a semantic distinction rather than a legal one. The US
constitution does
> not mention commonwealths or republics, so presumably
Massachusetts (and
> Virginia for that matter) would not be part of the USA if they
were not
> considered to be states.
>
> >Even Honk Kong was generally assumed to have a boundary
with China even
> >though much of it was leases
>
> I think it actually had two boundaries. An international boundary
> demarcated the sovereign territory (Hong Kong and Kowloon)
that was
> originally ceded in perpetuity, and I guess an administrative
boundary
> demarcated the New Territories and China proper.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin Meynell