I think I agree - for this case only.
I think however, the ambiguity in it all leaves the ground under the
bridge subject to US sovereignty for all purposes other than the
bridge... capturing wetbacks, for instance. When a purpose has
something to do with the bridge, then Mexicans have sovereign rights
to park their construction, inspection, repair or painting trucks
under it without deference to the US. Would that make a condominium?
Assuming Mexican crews lowered themselves from their half of the
bridge to a spot on the ground under it, did they ever leave Mexico to
take advantage of their sovereign right? The border has got to be
somewhere, and I've yet to figure out where. Could it be in two
places at once?
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> again
> in the absence of any wording that clearly establishes a
> nonstandard regime by explicitly delineating a vertical
> differentiation of some kind
> & in view of the reiteration of the defining & standard provision
> practically verbatim from 1884 to 1970
> namely that
> the monument shall denote the boundary or dividing line for all
> the purposes of the bridge
> it seems to me that nothing of any relevance to your question
> has changed at all
>
> moreover
> among the purposes of a bridge
> are
> to rise above the ground it rests on
> & to form a passageway across that ground
> & even to occupy the ground &or the space above it
> in order to maintain the special purposes & nature or treatment
> of that ground itself
>
> indeed to carry this line to its logical & necessary conclusion
> without the special ground & markers there can be no bridges
> & without the bridges & markers
> there cant even be any specially treated ground
>
> so it seems to me
> both from what is actually said & from what is not
> in every regard
> the bridge includes or subsumes the land underneath it
> &
> in relation to our starting proposition
> which is that boundaries are vertically continuous
> unless otherwise specified
> if indeed they are ever otherwise specified
> well once again
> as i see it
> no news is no news
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > I have abstracted the entire 1970 treaty, and it contains some
> fairly unorthodox
> > provisions! My abstraction is attached in Word format. Yes, I
> know, I went
> > overboard, but I wanted y'all to appreciate the full thrust of the
> treaty
> > without my having to transcribe it verbatim.
> >
> > For those who don't care to read the attached, here is the
> Article relative to
> > bridges:
> >
> > "The boundary on international bridges which cross the Rio
> Grande or the
> > Colorado River shall be shown by an appropriate monument
> exactly over the
> > international boundary determined by this Treaty at the time of
> demarcation.
> > When in the judgment of the Commission the variations of the
> international
> > boundary should warrant that the monument on any bridge
> should be relocated, it
> > shall so recommend to the two Governments and with their
> approval may proceed to
> > the reinstallation. This monument shall denote the boundary
> for all the
> > purposes of such bridge. Any rights other than those relating
> to the bridge
> > itself shall be determined, in case later changes occur, in
> accordance with the
> > provisions of this Treaty."
> >
> > Compare that with the respective language from the
> Convention of 1884 [as quoted
> > by L.N.], which document is expressly terminated by the 1970
> Treaty:
> >
> > "If any international bridge have been or shall be built across
> either rivers
> > named, the point on such bridge exactly over the middle of the
> main channel as
> > herein determined shall be marked by a suitable monument,
> which shall denote the
> > dividing line of all purposes of such bridge, notwithstanding
> any change in the
> > channel which may thereafter supervene. Because of the
> frequent changes in the
> > course of the rivers, any right other than in the bridge itself and
> in the
> > ground on which it shall be built shall in the event of any
> subsequent change be
> > determined in accordance with the general provisions of this
> convention."
> >
> > Note that the 1970 Treaty drops all reference to the ground on
> which bridges are
> > built.
> >
> > I think that we sorted out all relevant questions a few days ago
> as they would
> > have been under the 1884 Convention, but this 1970 Treaty
> sends us back to the
> > drawing board. I throw it out there you, and I await your
> comments.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA