Please see my three insertions below.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Divided building (DEFR) near DEFRLU
> not sure what you mean by such
> or by would have
I simply meant that it seemed to me that disturbing the sovereignty over and the
nationality of any possible islanders was unnecessary to accomplish the intent
for which the comdominium was established, namely to provide equal access to and
use of the boundary watercourse (for navigation, fishing, etc.). It seemed to
me that any inhabited islands would have been excluded from the condominium in
1816, just as was the portion of the river through Vianden.
> but in any case
> do you mean
> you would still think so even after having read the mentioned
> messages
> 3324 & 3312 & 3281
>
> or
> do you mean
> you would have thought so had you not read them
When I wrote what I wrote, I had not read those. I have now. Thanks for the
references. The logic of my assumption is confirmed by the exclusion of all
islands from the condominium under the Treaty of Aachen and their apportionment
to the two nations according to thalweg in the Protocol of Emmerich. According
to Mats, some islands disappeared and others formed. Eventually, by the time
the boundary was "refreshed" in 1980-1984, they had decided to include the
islands in the comdominium. If any one of them had then been inhabited, it
still seems logical to me that its exclusion from the condominium could, should,
and would have been preserved. I realize, though, that nations do not always
act logically in boundary matters.
> i am inclined to believe the apparently official data & seemingly
> informed opinions in those messages until they are actually
> refuted by something better
> & even tho they dont & i cant point to the specific agreement by
> which islands that may have been allocated to one country or the
> other in 1816 subsequently became condominial
>
>
> nor btw have we ever seen any maps or other data that
> specifically exclude any of the extant islands from the condo
Correct. All indication is that all islands are currently included. Since none
of the islands are now known to be excluded from the condominium, that seems a
fair hint that none are inhabited.
[end of insertions]
> nor
> as also stated
> does habitation appear to have determined the original & former
> distribution of the islands
> but rather their relationship to the thalweg
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > I would think that any such islands inhabited at the creation of
> the condominium would have been excluded from the
> condominium and would have remained in one country or the
> other.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA