--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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.
all the above detail is most useful & productive
& indeed gratifying to one who had been intuiting most of it anyway
& the only thing i may really disagree with you about is that nobody
will be right or wrong until & unless we hear from the supremes
& that if we wish to go further we can only speculate about what the
courts would decide
etc etc
because i think you have shown that unless we actually do hear from
the courts for whatever reason
the presumption has to be a full 9nm of arcs around pr since 1917 at
the latest
& a full 3nm of arcs around vi since 48usc1705a presumably post1917
& therefore in actual legal effect & practice at this time there
appears to be no better than an overlapping claim for vi in the small
theoretically lens shaped area where the 3nm of vi presumably would
deign to eclipse a bit of the 9nm of pr
for that i believe is the actual topology that obtains by law today
& no matter whether one construes the lens as pr or vi or condo
&or subject to distribution along its own median line
or whatever
the result will still be or rather actually is now
in my view
a pair of prusvi tripoints at the northern & southern tips of this
lens
my question to you or anybody about them
as in the cases of all the other federal seas tripoints you consider
you have also already nailed
was originally & still is entirely a question of pinpointing the
actual degminsecs of the trijunctions
again in this case
presumably at the tips of the lens of extant legal overlap
but possibly too
as you indicate
nowhere
& some day soon i would like to draw up a table of the degminsecs of
all 20
or as you may prefer to guess 18
federal seas tripoints of the usa
& i am most grateful to you lowell for carrying me a poor hitchhiker
in your snappy lexus such a long way lately toward this destination
of several years of journeying & play
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <orc@o...>
> 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/