--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> No agree. When a ship is in someone's territorial waters it's
> surrounding sovereignty is zero.
yes but de facto
everybody makes way for it unless they are nuts
they even avoid the propellers aft & below
& if they are much smaller they avoid the wakes for some
distance too
> Even the insides are not sovereign -
> the captain may be master, but he's under someone else's
flag when off
> high seas -
yes but here i am talking about when he is on the high seas
or at least when he is anywhere seaward of the coastal
baselines
i realize that some people reserve the designation of high seas
for seas beyond 12nm from the baselines
& others go in the other direction to include everywhere below
the low tide lines in the high seas
so i have til now purposely avoided that confusing term
but
by international law
the de jure sovereignty of a ship & authority of its captain extend
all the way in to the coastal baselines themselves
provided the passage is innocent & not otherwise illegal or
offensive to the country whose territorial waters it is passing thru
& this doesnt need any paperwork
but i agree only superior force
to board & examine
beyond 12nm tho
even if a crime had been committed on or by that ship
i believe such search & confiscation etc would be considered
piracy or a hostile act between countries
and only an extraterritorial treaty arrangement can save
> him from legal search, confiscation, etc.
> LN
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
<aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > beyond the coastal baselines
> > every innocently passing ship in the night exercises de facto
> > sovereignty over its immediate vicinity
> > as well as de jure sovereignty over itself & everything on it
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> > <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > > It may be "knowable" if the Turks support the town only by
sea -
> > I
> > > can't imagine the UN is allowing military transports across
it's
> > > surrounding sector. If we find that the de facto sovereignty
> > being
> > > exercized in the surrounding waters really has the town
> > isolated, then
> > > we would know what we are dealing with. The UN must be
> > able to tell
> > > us what's up.
> > > LN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > kokkina is really a de facto political exclave
> > > >
> > > > but because there is no agreement between cyprus
proper &
> > > > turkish cyprus delimiting their respective seas
> > > > as there is between cyprus proper & the uk restricting the
> > sba
> > > > areas to dry land only
> > > > it is unknown & unknowable whether kokkina is an
enclave
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> > > > <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > > > > Is Kokkina really an enclave [exclave]? That would, it
> > seems to
> > > > me,
> > > > > depend on who exercizes sovereignty over the water off
the
> > > > coast to
> > > > > the open sea.
> > > > > LN
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Meynell
> > > > <knm@m...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I haven't heard of Kokkina/Erenköy since I visited this
> > > > website a few
> > > > > > >minutes ago, but I take the liberty to assume the
enclave
> > > > still exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was certainly still there when I was in Cyprus last
year.
> > The
> > > > > area was
> > > > > > heavily guarded by UN troops, and it wasn't possible
to
> > enter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I managed to take a photo of the enclave from road
that
> > > > bypasses it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
http://www.meynell.com/cyprus/kokkina-enclave.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kevin Meynell