http://gort.ucsd.edu//mw/border/new3&4.jpg

here's a rather large file showing the runway with the
straight shot over the line. where it says
'aeropuerto' not 'brown field'

vc

--- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:

> I agree with your interpretation of a "tongue" of
> Mexican sovereignty "filled
> with a bridge" that extends out over and beyond the
> accretion-altered boundary
> in the middle of the river.
>
> I would go so far as to say that this Mexican
> sovereignty over the Mexican
> portion of the bridge encompasses the substance of
> the bridge itself (including
> its foundation piers into the earth), all traffic
> and persons upon it, all work
> for its operation and maintenance, etc. This is all
> for "the purposes of such
> bridge" and would be "relating to the bridge itself"
> (to use the Treaty's
> words). Everything else (the land under the bridge,
> the territorial airspace
> above the bridge, etc.) would be just as if the
> bridge had never existed.
>
> I would have to say that the accreted land under the
> Mexican segment of the
> bridge was Mexican soil while the Convention of 1884
> was in force, but it was
> among the many pieces of land that changed
> sovereignty on the date the 1970
> Treaty went into force (April 18, 1972). After all,
> the 1970 Treaty was to
> "Restore to the Rio Grande its character of
> international boundary in the
> reaches where that character has been lost..."
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- 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/
> >
> >
> >
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com