Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
Date: Jul 08, 2003 @ 17:23
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
> Lowell,
>
> this was a good effort at driving the logic to the "bottom of the
> funnel" to get at the logical end of interpretation. But (ampersand):
> take three of your paragraphs alone, which I've numbered below:
>
> Number 1 says, in effect, "we (US-MEX) posted a border marker on the
> bridge at the middle of the river". In case the river changes, and
> one of us doesn't undo the change, then the river remains the border
> for all purposes EXCEPT those relating to the bridge itself".
>
> I agree that we have a "differentiation" - a "tongue" or tunnel of
> Mexican airspace here that juts out north of the center of the river,
> which is filled with a bridge around which we can draw an
> international border (which, where drawn at the end of the tunnel can
> be moved as the sign is moved along the bridge span.) This tongue
> comes down to earth north of the river at whatever spot(s)on earth are
> occupied by the foundations over which bridge supports are built.
>
> With respect to your paragraph that I numbered as "2.", I interpret
> "rights other than those relating to the bridge itself" in your
> paragraph 1, not to mean "for the purposes of the bridge", which you
> defined as "carrying traffic". For one thing, these rights with
> respect to the "bridge itself" come into play only "in case later
> changes occur" (i.e. river movement, for one). Once the river
> changes, THEN other rights relating to the bridge itself come into
> play. Prior to any change, the Mexican side would have rights to park
> under the bridge on its own territory, because prior to any change,
> the side of the bridge marked by the marker is right above the middle
> of the river - everything south is Mexican. If the river moved south,
> the north side under the bridge becomes American, but limited to the
> extent of "rights with respect to the bridge", which I interpret to
> mean that the rights the mexicans previously had to park under the
> bridge for purposes of the bridge (i.e, to drive a truck under it to
> put up a scaffold so that Mexican workers could scrape rust off the
> underside, etc, etc.) is a right Mexico had "relating to the bridge"
> before the river moved, and a right they don't lose under the treaty
> just because the river moved, the border on the ground went with it
> placing the ground in the US.
>
> This is exactly the same case as we have in the Vennbahn, that we had
> in Steinstuecken before German unification, that existed in one spot
> where the border between German Eupen and Malmedy was at a bridge, and
> which we may have with respect to the bridge over the
> German-Luxembourg condominium. It parallels the tunnel of airspace of
> occupied West Berlin under allied sovereignty that jutted out above
> and across East German airspace that had upper and lower limits of
> altitude by treaty, within which East Germany had no sovereign right,
> except that it wasn't filled with a bridge.
>
> "Vertically differentiated international borders"... I like the sound
> of that! :-) Even the acronym is useful = "V-dibs".
>
> Len
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lowell wrote and quoted:
>
> 1. "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," [which is to say, the middle of the main
> channel]."
>
> 2. "The purpose of bridges is to carry traffic of various sorts
> across the river. For those purposes (only), the monument on the
> bridge is observed. For everything else, the boundary goes wherever
> the river accretes..."
>
> 3. "I fear that honesty forces me to admit that what we have here is
> either a true vertical differentiation or something functionally
> similar. Whichever one calls it is only a matter of semantics. I
> have now come to believe that Mr. Rubio of the IBWC was entirely
> correct when he enunciated the agency's interpretation to me by
> telephone that the accreted land beneath the monumented Mexican
> segment of the bridge is sovereign American territory. (The same
> could be said for the airspace above it.)"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>