Belatedly, I have now reviewed that particular part of Van Zandt's BUS&SS.
While I can agree that Pacific coastal states can extend their territorial
waters no more than 3 nautical miles into the Pacific, I would argue that the
waters around Point Roberts are not at all the Pacific Ocean, but are inland
waters clear out to the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca between Vancouver
Island and the northwest corner of the Olympic Peninsula. Even if this were not
conceded, surely Semiahmoo Bay would be inland waters, subject to a closing line
across its mouth between the southeastern corner of Point Roberts and Birch
Point on the big part of dry Washington. Thus, Washington is a unitary whole.
The Supremes have adopted the principles of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone for the purpose of differentiating
between inland waters and the sea in the delimitation of state waters under the
Submerged Lands Act. They have determined that inland waters as defined by the
1958 Convention are state waters.
The Submerged Lands Act, passed as it was by politicians needing enough votes
for its passage, left the door open for Gulf Coast states to prove historic
legal claims to wider state waters in the Gulf. Texas and Florida did so, but
the other Gulf states were unable to. The Submerged Lands Act did trump
Florida's antecedent legal claim to wider waters in the Atlantic Ocean, because
it authorized wider claims only in the Gulf of Mexico. A special master for the
Supreme Court determined that the dividing line between the Gulf of Mexico and
the Atlantic Ocean runs from the westernmost point of land in the Dry Tortugas
Islands due south to Cuba.
Meanwhile, Mike, please clarify what you mean by your statement about "the
unique diomede exclave enclaved in nothing." Do you simply mean that the
boundary of Little Diomede's state waters with the waters of the Russian
Federation's Big Diomede give it a "way out" from total enclavic isolation?
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 4:28 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Four Color Maps
> yes here in bus&ss
> the same source you are citing
> under territorial waters & the continental shelf
> it indicates this sla of 1953 ended all possibility for the pacific
> states among others to claim more than 3nm of territorial seas
>
> so i think that is probably a lock on that question
>
> it has just taken the cartographers half a century to react
> & most of them still havent
>
> even the bible itself is mute on this flagrant self contradiction
> as if it foresaw some possible difficulty
>
> but so far as i know
> there has been no legal challenge or relevant opinion either way
>
> & if push ever did come all the way to shove
> i admit i cant confidently say which law would trump which
> can you
>
> but it would please me to take the opportunity to stand alone in the
> face of all the maps
>
>
> also one further nibble on your state exclave collection
>
> alaska besides having exclaves enclaved in federal waters enclaved in
> high seas
> also has the unique diomede exclave enclaved in nothing
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> > you may be right
> >
> > indeed most maps i have seen indicate you are right
> >
> > but i was thinking the 3 mile limits imposed by the submerged lands
> > act would probably trump the statehood specs of all but texas &
> gulf
> > coast florida
> > since
> > unless i am mistaken
> > that law specifically exempts only these 2
> >
> > but i dont have it in front of me
> >
> > & i would be glad to see something definitive on this