--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I wish to make a few codifications of the obvious, then state
something that I
> have newly realized about enclaves.
>
> As nature abhors a vacuum, political geography abhors an
enclave. I need not
> enumerate the inconveniences to both countries that are
engendered by their
> existence. This explains why they tend to be eliminated (either
unilaterally or
> by mutual consent) and are never reconstituted.
>
> There has been much recent discussion at to whether certain
claves do or do not
> still exist. I would say that claves "exist" only to such extent and
for only
> so long as they are tolerated by the surrounding state.
places under siege are exceptional
in not being tolerated
yet are basically archetypical of enclaves also
nor do these necessarily result from the division of some larger
entity
but many enclaves are just the result of military standoffs
They are essentially
> ungovernable by their de jure states, except by the grace and
through the
> cooperation of the surrounding state. In the absence of that
grace and
> cooperation, a vacuum of power ensues, to be filled by the
surrounding state.
>
> The Baarle enclaves are tolerated and secure because of
close affinity and
> cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands.
Switzerland tolerates the
> German and Italian enclaves within it because it gets along
with everyone and
> because the Germanic and Italic Swiss tolerate each other so
well. Where ethnic
> strife militates against toleration, as between Armenia and
Azerbaijan and among
> Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, enclaves are most
imperiled. In the
> case of India and Bangladesh, a tense mutual toleration of the
200-odd claves in
> and around Cooch Behar is promoted by a relative balance of
the exclaves that
> each has within the other.
>
> Even in the case of well-tolerated enclaves, they are often a bit
more de jure
> than they are de facto, the sovereignty of the mother state being
somewhat
> watered down. We commonly see enclaves partially subject to
the surrounding
> states, as exemplified in customs unions, currency use, utility
service,
> exemptions from EU provisions, etc.
>
> The toleration and cooperation necessary for the existence of
enclaves is a much
> easier matter among sub-national divisions within a nation
than between nations.
> For this reason, sub-national enclaves are much more
common than international
> ones. When sub-national claves are established by the
national authority for
> its own convenience, the sub-national authorities have little
choice but to
> tolerate the inconvenience.
>
> Finally, I come to the new realization:
Most national-level enclaves are
> artifacts of the division of some larger entity.
>
> The complexities at Baarle resulted from the independence of
Belgium from the
> Netherlands. The droves of Cooch Behar enclaves resulted
from the division of
> British India into India and Pakistan (later Bangladesh).
Sastavci resulted
> from the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The former West Berlin
resulted from the
> partition of Germany among the Four Powers. The many iffy
enclaves found
> scattered about the post-Soviet republics resulted from the
dissolution of the
> USSR.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA