I think the answers to the question of their being dry land areas
within the DE-LUX condo will be answered when we see the treaty text.
I've ordered a copy of the book, and when I have digested it, I'll
post whatever is there that exposes something.
Also, sometime this week, I'll visit the Border Commission HQ here in
DC and ask if a drug runner or people smuggler is captured under the
bridge south of the border marker but on the north side of the river
if the person is in the U.S. or in Mexico at that point, and I'll let
you know what they say.
It'll probably be some maneuver words, such as "we have a hot pursuit
agreement so the government needn't establish a precedent by
ascertaining the answer".
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> thanxx twice lowell
> for even without having seen the maps
> i am practically certain your analysis is correct
> & just the latest on our long trail of busted claims
> of vertically differentiated sovereignty
> a topic most recently revisited & summarized in messages 9963
> 9971 9973 9974 9975 9985 9990
>
> & similarly your very interesting eagle pass observation or try
> just like all the other bridge markers along mxus
> is i think most probably overridden by the accretions of the river
> since the unavulsed rio border has been defined & oft reiterated
> as the living thalweg or middle of the deepest channel of the rio
>
> & thus
> unless there is some legal provision here that i am unaware of
> like the lithuanian one by which bridges & their markers trump
> thalwegs
> or say one that makes even the misguided & unratified acts of
> the ibwc trump the treaty texts & the laws of both countries
> then i think all mxus bridge markers are technically relict even as
> they are being installed
> since they refer at best to the accurate thalweg position in the
> past rather than actually marking the present legal reality
>
> & the fact that these markers are far more likely to be observed
> than the thalweg ever is
> & are so official looking to boot
> indeed because they are official
> makes for a hilarious mass delusion
> but not yet necessarily for vertically differentiated sovereignty
>
> usually the distances involved are so small & ephemeral & the
> practical distinctions so nonexistent that nobody notices or cares
> & i think that is where the matter presently stands
>
> however it does set up a situation in which the vertical
> differentiation could eventually accrue
> upon & above the bridges
> by uti possidetis juris
> if ever tested & adjudicated that way
>
> it is just that we have seen no evidence for this yet
> & until there is
> i think we have here & in many other places on the rio & in the
> world today illusory or fuzzy borders & the particular illusion of
> differentiated vertical sovereignty
> but not yet the actual fact of it
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > L. A. Nadybal wrote:
> >
> > > a. There is a piece of land on the France-Condo border in
> white.
> > According to the Legend, the pink is the joint sovereignty area -
> and
> > the piece of land is not in pink, not in Luxembourg proper and
> not in
> > Germany proper, either.
> >
> > Actually, the map shows TWO such mystery areas: (1) The
> end of the island that
> > sticks from France into the condominium; and (2) the jetty or
> wing-wall that
> > extends twice as far from the lock in France at the left edge of
> the lower map.
> >
> > Actually, I think these lands and the bridge as well are within
> the condominium.
> > Notice that in the legend, the German and French texts relating
> to the condo are
> > right beside the island and bridge. I think they're saying that
> everything
> > between the pink dashed lines is condo (including lavender
> water and white lands
> > and bridge). All dry DELU boundary lines and those fronting
> the condo are shown
> > as pink dashed lines, and there are none around the white
> island.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA