A few messages back, an article was reproduced (or a link was made)
which stated that border fences between India-Bangladesh had to be no
closer than 150 yards from the actual border lines. It was worded to
give the impression that this was an international norm, to which
another member responded "according to what internation law?" do
fences need to be so far back off the actual border.

Brendan Whyte's thesis, based on his eye witness visits, covers this.
On pg.175 at section 5.4, he wrote: "The fences are 150 yards back
from the boundary itself, in line with bipartisan agreements to
construct no defensive works within a total 300 yard buffer on the
boundary. ... Those with fields between the fence and the boundary
must retire behind the fence before sundown and cannot return to their
fields before sunrise. At night the land beyond the fence can be
illuminated by searchlights from nearby guard towers... The boundary
has never been a no man's land, with villages divided by it or
expanding to meet it. ...residents in Malda were protesting plans to
demolish 500 houses along the boundary there to enable placement of
barbed wire..."

Obviously this is peculiar to this area based on "bipartisan"
arrangements - it certainly wasn't based on an "international norm",
as is evidenced by the Gibraltar-Spain border fences or the former
borders of W. Gemany with former Czechoslovakia, for example.

Regards

LN