--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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,
i would not argue
but i am pretty sure the sla actually says
3nm from coasts
& doesnt necessarily specify oceanic waters nor distinguish internal
ones from them
& i believe the supremes have basically signed off on this law too
as early as 1954
more below
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.
thanx very much for this choice morsel in any case
& you can see here that the usgs still doesnt have it right
http://topozone.com/map.asp?lat=24.66472&lon=-82.85556
but draws the line between the 3nm & 9nm regimes
on an east west basis rather than the north south line you specify
something i had always suspected they had done arbitrarily
but couldnt prove until now
>
> Meanwhile, Mike, please clarify what you mean by your statement
about "the
> unique diomede exclave enclaved in nothing."
i probably should have said it is not enclaved in anything
rather than telescoping it down this way into nothingness
for a conundrum at best
but as i believe you have anticipated below
the topology is
the particular exclave of alaska
comprising little diomede island & its surrounding alaska state waters
is not completely enclosed by any single entity
it is mostly but not entirely surrounded by american federal seas
but it is also partly enclosed by russian territorial seas
because the passage between the diomedes is far narrower than 3nm
& i should have said this is unique among alaskas several exclaves
tho it is a topological near match for point roberts
provided my recently expressed view of the latter is correct
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@h...>
> 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