Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
Date: Jul 09, 2003 @ 04:39
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Cantore" <drpotatoes@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
> does that treaty state anything about upper limits?
> everytime i go to san ysidro i see planes taking off
> from the Tijuana airport violating (or entering i
> suppose) US airspace. If not, i wonder what treaty,
> etc. gives planes taking off from that airport the
> right to enter US airspace. The landing strip points
> right over the border and the airport is literally
> across the street from the wonderful steel fence we
> built.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>