Rereading my post, the translation might lead to a little confusion
here. To clear it up: I think the author suggests two things: 1.
the waters can adapt to Article XXI and be under the rule of Alveo.
2. there can be a condominium.
-Mike K.
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> 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@o...> 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/