Yes - that's why I said the "suggested BR-UY condo."
Part 7 of this study is pretty much the author's view
on what should/could be done to resolve the conflict.
His idea is shown in the map in that section,
including the community of waters ("comunidade das
aguas Brasil/Uruguai" in Portuguese). So here he is
suggesting a condominium. In English below is the
translation of the last paragraph of Part 7
(Las...terrestre):
"The waters to the south of Isla Brasilera, in
agreement established in the Juridical Statute - 1933,
in its Article XXI, are waters in the rule/government
of "Alveo" (= Mother of the River), or it (can
possibly) be a community of waters in which the
jurisdiction of each (country) of the river bank
reaches up to the opposite river bank but without
reaching/overtaking its (the other country's)
terrestrial/land part."
What's interesting is this Article XXI which claims
the waters are under the jurisdiction of the "Mother
of the River." I did not see any reference to this
anywhere else in the document. Maybe a potential
enclave of Everyone's Land? :)
-Mike K.
--- acroorca2002 <
orc@...> wrote:
> i think thats a disputed ownership there tho mike
> rather than any kind of joint ownership
>
> & i may have just been imagining this last one too
>
> so really
> to have maybe 5 or 7 is practically as good as
> having maybe 6 or 8
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael
> Kaufman"
> <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > Mike - I think you must be recalling the suggested
> BR-UY condo
> shown
> > here in the bottom image:
> >
> > http://www.info.lncc.br/wrmkkk/uilhabe.html
> >
> > Isla Brasilera is still disputed BR-UY.
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> wrote:
> > > indio ca
> > >
> > > renewed thanx & bravos peter for this stunningly
> punctilious
> > analysis
> > >
> > > so i guess we can say there is a probable or a
> putative cnkp condo
> > >
> > > & i think you have nailed its topology as well
> as possible for now
> > >
> > > & overnight i may also have recalled a possible
> 6th or 8th member
> > of
> > > this elite little list of international condos
> as begun below
> > >
> > > or perhaps there is a whole new constellation of
> them in this new
> > case
> > > i forget
> > > was it a riverine archipelago or something on
> aruy or arpa or arbr
> > > dang
> > > i can never keep them straight anyway
> > >
> > > but can anyone remind me if this is real
> > > or what is what in this last case too
> > > just to complete the probable global condo list
> > > since or rather if we really can now
> > >
> > >
> > > talking of co tho
> > > myself i actually woke up in coachella this
> morning
> > > which comes just before coalinga & coarsegold in
> the california
> > index
> > > before realizing the last full service
> laundromat before the
> > > wilderness was back here in eendio
> > > whoops
> > > so it is back 3 spaces again
> > > plus a carwash & insurance payment etc etc
> > > & i will at least blend into the woodwork a
> little better now
> > > a matter of no little importance btw
> > > here in the land of the free & home of the brave
> > >
> > > but having nailed continental & dry caw
> > > & also cas
> > > & incidentally a few of californias other
> corners too
> > > as well as possible on previous tries
> > > & while still puzzling over the exact location
> of the elusive can
> > > i have determined to make a try for cae in the
> meantime
> > > so as to prepare the way for completing a first
> known news tour
> of
> > > the cardinal extremities of california
> > > as soon as future research will enable such a
> culmination
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> Smaardijk"
> > > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> Smaardijk"
> > > > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "m06079"
> > > > <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > & thanx again peter now that i have really
> studied &
> > > appreciated
> > > > > this
> > > > > > seamless text
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but as you indicated
> > > > > > there still seems to be some question
> > > > > >
> > > > > > first they talk about a cnkp joint area
> > > > > > but then they talk about a tripoint
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & we know from the trilines of the delu
> condo areas
> > > > > > that there would be no single tricountry
> point
> > > > > > but a tricountry line with 2 bidominial
> tricountry points
> at
> > > its
> > > > > ends
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nor could i find the mentioned monument
> numbers on this
> > > probably
> > > > > > older map
> > > > > > & thus still cant visualize what the condo
> area might look
> > like
> > > > > >
> > > > > > any ideas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nevertheless
> > > > > > there certainly appears to be reason to
> hope this is a real
> > deal
> > > > > > if i am not mistaken
> > > > > > our fifth or seventh in this rare
> international condo
> category
> > > > > > together with
> > > > > > 2 delu
> > > > > > 2 esfr
> > > > > > aeom &
> > > > > > eshoni
> > > > >
> > > > > The treaty deals with "the" tripoint, not
> with the
> condominium,
> > > and
> > > > > although I can see that you can't really
> deal with the
> tripoint
> > > > > without taking into account the condominium,
> the problem
> seems
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > that the condominium isn't very well - if at
> all - described.
> > So
> > > > the
> > > > > only thing we can assume is that the
> condominium exists. The
> > only
> > > > > point that can be located with certainty in
> that case is
> (CNKP)
> > > > KPRU.
> > > > > The line described in the agreement, which
> marks the end of
> the
> > > > > condominium, looks like to be only
> instrumental in defining
> > this
> > > > > point (where it crosses the other line - the
> thalweg KPRU
> > > > boundary).
> > > > > I agree that (CNKP)KPRU is only half of the
> story, but it
> looks
> > > > like
> > > > > being the maximum attainable here. I suspect
> that the treaty
> > was
> > > > more
> > > > > important to Russia than to the other two
> countries: Russia
> > > closed
> > > > a
> > > > > gap in its border. The gap consisted of 1)
> the last stretch
> of
> > > KPRU
> > > > > between KPRU marker pair no. 1 and
> (CNKP)KPRU and 2) the
> (CNKP)
> > RU
> > > > > border between (CNKP)KPRU and CNRU marker
> no. 423.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether that last marker is the other
> tripoint, CN(CNKP)RU,
> > > remains
> > > > > an open question. If the condominium border
> follows the river
> > > bank,
> > > > > it can't be, unless the marker is on the
> very edge of the
> land
> > > and
> > > > > half in the river. But I don't believe that
> is the case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter S.
> > > >
> > > > In http://www.pnp.ru/pg_nomers/20865.htm
> (Parlamentskaja
> gazeta),
> > > it
> > > > is mentioned that a draft "additional
> protocol-description" of
> > the
> > > > CNRU border, eastern section, is approved by
> the Russian
> > > government.
> > > > It deals with CNRU in between CNRU marker no.
> 423 and the newly
> > > > established tripoint (by the tripartite
> agreement). There is no
> > > talk
> > > > of the condominium whatsoever here, and the
> protocol is
> presented
> > > by
> > > > the head of the Russian delegation to the
> joint Russian-Chinese
> > > > demarcation commission, so no mention of
> Koreans here.
> > > >
> > > > This official, Genrich Kireev, says that the
> aim of the
> > additional
> > > > protocol-description was to describe in
> detail, including the
> > exact
> > > > co-oordinates, the location of the tripoint.
> "(...) the
> tripoint
> > is
> > > > located in the middle of the main channel of
> the Tumannaja
> river,
> > > > 306,9 m. from boundary marker no. 423".
> > > >
> > > > Real information on the condominium is
> probably only available
> in
> > > > Chinese sources. Or someone could browse
> through all .kp
> websites
> > > on
> > > > the internet :-))
> > > >
> > > > Peter S.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/