The Submerged Lands Act says that it applies to "any State of the Union."
Federal law at 48 U.S.C. 749 (in the title on "Territories and Insular
Possessions") says:
The harbor areas and navigable streams and bodies of water and
submerged lands underlying the same in and around the island of
Puerto Rico and the adjacent islands and waters, owned by the
United States on March 2, 1917...are placed under the control of the
government of Puerto Rico...
..."navigable bodies of water and submerged lands
underlying the same in and around the island of Puerto Rico and the
adjacent islands and waters" extend from the coastline of the
island of Puerto Rico and the adjacent islands as heretofore or
hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, or reliction, seaward to
a distance of three marine leagues...
It is highly significant that the date mentioned (March 2, 1917) was the day
BEFORE the day on which the Congress appropriated $25 million for the purchase
of the "Danish West Indian Islands." Consequently, the measurement of Puerto
Rico's waters is done with the assumption that the Virgin Islands are Danish.
At 48 U.S.C. 1705(a), it is written:
...all right, title, and interest
of the United States in lands permanently or periodically covered
by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide and
seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the
coastlines of the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and
American Samoa...are hereby conveyed to the governments of
Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, as the case may be,
to be administered in trust for the benefit of the people thereof.
I have found no decisions of either the Supreme Court, the 1st Circuit (which
has jurisdiction over Puerto Rico), or the 3rd Circuit (which has jurisdiction
over the Virgin Islands) relating to the seaward limits of either dependency.
Thus, if we wish to go further, we can only speculate as to how the Supreme
Court would decide, were the question ever to present itself.
You will remember that in the matter of the lateral boundary between Louisiana
and Texas, the Supremes applied (over the objection of Texas) the modern Geneva
principles of median line and measurement from jetties because they were drawing
in modern times a virgin boundary had never been formally established before. I
doubt that any formal DKUS or DKES marine boundary had ever been established in
the Antilles prior to 1917, so the situation would be equally virgin. I believe
that the Supremes would first apply modern Geneva principles to draw DKUS as of
March 2, 1917; and they would then award to Puerto Rico those American waters
within three marine leagues of its coasts. The median line mandated by Geneva
principles would whack off the easternmost 3ml arc from Puerto Rico, interposing
federal waters between it and the 3nm arc from the Virgin Islands and obviating
any tripoints.
Again, this is speculation. Differing speculation is welcome, and nobody will
be right or wrong until and unless we hear from the Supremes.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: PRVI
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Even though the Convention on the Contiguous Zone, etc. was
intended for
> international boundaries, it has been officially anointed by the
Supremes as
> their guiding principles for the interpretation of internal US
boundaries.
> Therefore, I think that it would probably govern this situation. I
have not
> searched out the historic origins of the respective PR and VI
claims; but if
> they descend from respective Spanish and Danish claims from prior
to American
> acquisition of these dependencies, then the international standard
would be
> quite appropriate. Can you elucidate us on the origins of the
claims? Is the
> Submerged Lands Act involved here?
cant definitely answer either question
tho i think the sla might be adduced
sort of the way you would like to adduce the convention on the
contiguous zone etc
& i think there is some probability of both of these legal
applications actually occurring
yours only if push ever came to shove & there was a legal test tho
but first
& in the normal course of amicable relations
i would think an sla type of unequal regime is actually fully in
effect for both pr at 9nm & vi at 3nm
which i am assuming
since i am unaware of any difficulty or other anomaly here
& i have long been curious myself about the 9nm of pr waters
supposing its cause was the same hispanic heritage as caused the
texas & florida 9nm waters
but of course the cases of california & guam etc very probably bust
that thesis
& i think the 3nm of virgin islands waters probably owe less to their
danish heritage than to a law of the usa
& perhaps it is an appendage of the sla
but i have no idea really
for i have never actually seen but only surmised this law
providing 3nm to all american territories except pr
for i have seen 3nm waters so attributed
not only to vi but to every other territorial entity of the usa
except pr
in some fairly credible sources
but you know i have just been sniffing all these realities out
without hardly any actual legal accessibility til now
& i certainly do wish you can pinpoint them one way or the other
especially since not just the locations but the very existence of 2
such important & exotic multipoints depend on it
tho i cant promise you your doing so would be productive in the eyes
of anyone but me
& thanx for relaxing your certainty here into something a little more
tentative
i think it is appropriate both in this case & in general
> Because I wrote my message on PRVI without a good map of the
region, I obviously
> didn't realize that the VI 3nm limit would not reach a median
line. While that
> does make it a bit complicated, I think that in such a situation
the median line
> should still stand as an absolute limit for the jurisdiction with
the wider
> waters. To do otherwise (by allowing wrap-around or any sort of
> proportionality) would forever preclude the jurisdiction with the
narrower claim
> from ever exercising a claim as wide as the other.
>
> My tentative scheme would indeed interpose a band of federal waters
between the
> median line and the VI 3nm arc. It is tentative, and it could be
wrong.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:12 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: PRVI
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Earlier, in another context, Mike wrote:
> >
> > > & the problems of prusvin & prusvis are largely confined to
> figuring
> > > out how to balance the effects of the 9nm regime of puerto rico
> with
> > > those of the 3nm regime of the virgin islands
> >
> > > probably by first giving the 3nm full effect
> > > & then wrapping the 9nm around it as much as possible
> >
> > > tho i could imagine giving them a proportional effect too
> > > &or even cutting a clean meridional division between them
> > > or some other solution
> >
> > > but i assume this remains undone & so is only putative in any
case
> > > & therefore maybe not so pressing or problematic as the others
> >
> > I, also, assume that this remains undone, but I can tell you
> exactly how it
> > would be done.
>
> yes i think this is exactly how it would be done if pr & vi were
> independent countries
> but this is an internal boundary within the united states
> where the rules often differ
>
> also
> the best maps i have seen indicate that the median line would fall
> well outside the 3nm arcs of the virgin islands yet well within the
> 9nm arcs of puerto rico
>
> so it seems to me your methodology would actually disconnect the
> territorial waters of pr from those of vi & interpose a band of
> federal waters between them
> & incidentally preclude the existence of any prusvi tripoints
>
> & what you are proposing might seem particularly unfair & unamerican
> to pr
> in giving full effect to vi while needlessly foreshortening pr
> owing not to any american law
>
> so i am still expecting
> full effect for vi first
> followed by full effect for pr all the way to the vi limit
> rather than only as far as the median line
> & thus 2 wraparound tripoints at the northeasternmost &
> southeasternmost extremities of pr waters
> where they are only slightly eclipsed by those of vi
> but i am glad to have your opinion
>
> >
> > The first paragraph of Article 12 of the Convention on the
> Territorial Sea and
> > Contiguous Zone says:
> > _______________________
> >
> > Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each
> other, neither
> > of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to
> the contrary,
> > to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point
of
> which is
> > equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which
the
> breadth of
> > the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured.
> > _______________________
> >
> > So, there would first be drawn a median line between the two
closest
> > Puertorriqueño and Virgin islands. Then the respective 9nm and
3nm
> limits would
> > extend outward against, but in no wise beyond, the median line.
> The median line
> > would squarely whack off the arc of each, the wider arc of Puerto
> Rico much more
> > bluntly so.
> >
> > The points PRUSVIN and PRUSVIS would be located where the Virgin
> 3nm arc
> > encounters the median line.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/