I do not really think for one minute that the USA/Mexico boundary is anything
other than absolutely vertical. I agree with Acroorca that, IF the monuments
indeed fix the boundary on the bridge; then the boundary probably jogs away from
the ever-moving thalweg along the flanks of the bridge to reach the fixed
monumented point. The notion of any contortions out of the vertical are
patently ridiculous in the absence of specific treaty language (and would still
be bizarre even with it).
The US segments of bridges on the Rio Grande border tend to be owned by the
private sector or local governments. The State of Texas owns only one (at
Presidio), and the IWBC itself owns a few! Those that are privately owned (all
of the railway and some of the highway bridges) are subject to property
taxation. For that reason alone, it would be most practical to fix the boundary
on bridges. Additionally, the railways have federal authority to operate as
common carriers. If the US railway built, owns, and maintains the bridge to the
boundary monument, and if the connecting Mexican railway has the rest; what
happens then if the boundary moves southward with the accreting river. Private
property would not pass to the other party. That would leave a segment of track
in the USA that pertains to a railway not having common-carrier authority in the
USA. (In the several cases where Canadian and Mexican railways have and do own
huge amounts of track in the USA, it is done through US subsidiaries that do
have such authority).
I, like Acroorca, would be most interested to learn where it is written that
IWBC bridge monuments trump accretions of the thalweg. I have been unable to
find any copies of the applicable treaties on the web. (It's almost as if the
feds were intentionally hiding them, but I know that they're published in
books.) I believe that the currently governing treaty would be that of November
23, 1970. The treaties could very well provide for the joint survey of the
boundary and that monuments once established along the dry boundary AND AT RIVER
CROSSING POINTS and accepted by both sovereigns are fixed. We all know that
even an astronomically flawed demarcation of a dry boundary governs nevertheless
if it has been ratified by the parties.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: DEFRLU + BEDELU & eagle pass
> len
> of course this question refers only to the accreted sectors & not
> to the avulsed ones at all
> where there is no question the markers do rule
>
> & then if you do learn that the ibwc markers do indeed legally
> trump their corresponding thalweg position
> & i would think there is certainly a good possibility of this
> it will still be necessary to learn the path by which the boundary
> gets from the ground to the bridge
> or the presumption will remain that the bridge jog sector
> whether expressly or implicitly
> interrupts the thalweg boundary for the width of the bridge
> & along its edges
> but still without vertical differentiation of sovereignty
> just as we saw occurs by law in lithuania
>
> but please do continue the hot pursuit
>
> i am sure you are on to something big here
> if not a vertigal jog
> then at least the clear delineation of a fantastic illusion
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> <orc@o...> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> > <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > > 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 thought we already knew there are many such dry areas
> >
> > > I've ordered a copy of the book, and when I have digested it,
> I'll
> > > post whatever is there that exposes something.
> >
> > great
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > great
> > you are on the leading edge of this question then
> > which i think boils down to
> > where does it actually say
> > ibwc markers above the river trump the thalweg
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>