much obliged martin
& you are as always highly illuminating & never boring
so
if i may summarize &or extrapolate
it does appear from all this that we may well have lost our
omnisovereign rights to an exclave or 2 of everyones land in the
form of the sea bedding
tho not of the seabed itself
& not a drop of everyones water has been drunk or spilt in any way
& it may all be perfectly legal in the end
well these are some consolations
also to correct myself
our 18 hole everyones land golf course is really not affected at all
by these developments
since the donut holes are actually our own exclaves rather than
somebody elses exclaves in our territory
silly of me to confuse them
m
--- In
BoundaryPoint@egroups.com, "Martin Pratt"
<m.a.pratt@d...> wrote:
> The agreement divided the continental shelf of both 'doughnut
holes'
> in the Gulf of Mexico but the water column above the seabed in
both
> areas remains part of the high seas (Mike's 'everyone's land').
>
> Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)
> all coastal states are entitled to claim sovereign rights (that's
> sovereign rights, not sovereignty...) over the resources of the
sea
> and seabed up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines.
Where the
> physical continental margin extends beyond 200 nautical
miles, states
> may also claim rights over the resources over the continental
shelf
> (but not the water column) under a complicated formula up to a
> maximum of 350 nautical miles or 100 nautical miles beyond
the 2,500
> metre isobath. In this context, Mexico and the USA would
appear to be
> entitled to claim continental shelf rights and delimit a
boundary
> between them in the doughnut holes.
>
> That said, there may be problems down the line associated with
this
> agreement. In order to acquire rights over continental shelf
beyond
> 200 miles, a state must have its claim approved by the United
Nations
> Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf within ten
years of
> the entry into force of the Convention on the Law of the Sea for
that
> state. For Mexico, that means 2004. In theory, if Mexico does
not
> submit technical evidence to support its claim to the
Commission in
> the next three years, rights to its claimed share of the
doughnut
> hole seabed resources would fall to the International Seabed
> Authority on behalf of the international community as a whole.
In
> practice, the deadline for submission of such claims is likely to
be
> extended, although no date has yet been set. The USA has still
to
> ratify UNCLOS, which raises a whole raft of other legal issues
which
> I won't bore you with now.
>
> I hope that helps, although like most things legal, it has
probably
> raised as many questions as it has answered!
>
> m a r t i n
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@egroups.com, "mick donner" <m@d...>
wrote:
> > interesting
> >
> > also was it my imagination or arent there really 2 donut holes
out
> > there & are these the same or different from the 2
omnisovereign
> > holes of human heritage area previously indicated in the gulf
of
> > mexico also
> >
> > at least i sure hope that the usa & mexico are not simply
> > appropriating & divvying up our most local units of
everyones
> > land
> >
> > that would leave our golf course a hole or 2 short
> > & set an ominous precedent for the rest
> >
> > lets hope i am mistaken
> >
> > can anyone say
> >
> > m