Subject: Re: Tripoint Deutsches Reich - Schweiz - �sterreich 1927
Date: Jan 07, 2005 @ 23:30
Author: pete2784west ("pete2784west" <pete2784west@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>Bl.
> Hi,
>
> I went to the National Library today; I did not have much time so I
> only skimmed through one of the books, a Master's thesis (Klocker,
> Gernot : Die Hoheitsrechte am Bodensee unter Berücksichtigung des
> Fischereirechtes / eingereicht von: Gernot Klocker , 1996 . - 59
> - Innsbruck, Univ., Dipl.-Arb., 1997).opinion
>
> This work seems to be well researched and the author holds the
> that there exist distinct boundaries on the lake. The Austriantalk
> boundary is a straight line between the two spots where ATGE and
> ATCHE, respectively, hit the lake.
>
> He bases his claim on these reasons:
>
> a) The Map attached to the Treaty of St-Germain, the Austrian
> equivalent to the Versailles treaty: The treaty itself does not
> about the boundary in Lake Constance, but there is a map attachedto
> it on which the above mentioned line is indicated.have
>
> b) Official Austrian catastral maps of the lake and its environs
> adopted exactly this line as the Austrian boundary.claim,
>
> c) Only in 1976 did Austria finally settle on the condominium
> after making different claims throughout history. Germany andI am
> Switzerland both argue for straight boundaries and against the
> condominium solution.
>
> His arguments are good, but from an international law perspective
> not entirely convinced.tribunal
> a) Illustrative maps attached to treaties do not hold the same
> normative power as the treaty itself.
> b) I am not sure whether such catastral maps would convince a
> that this is the official position of the state concerned andwhether
> this prejudices it from holding other claims.position
> c) He did not go into details of what the previous Austrian
> was, so this would have to be looked at in more detail.<lnadybal@c...>
>
> But hey, in general, his arguments are not bad!
>
> I won't be able to head to the library again for two weeks but will
> try to read up then.
>
> Cheerio,
>
> Anton
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
> <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> > wrote:qualification of
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
> > > <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > as far as I know there never was any boundary change in Lake
> > > > Constance, the position of any line or even the
> theSwiss
> > > > whole lake as a condominium has been always disputed.
> > >
> > > However, during the "Anschlu�" period, the Germans and the
> mustit
> > > have come to an arrangement that regulated at what point people
> > > fleeing to Switzerland across the lake were deemed to have
> > > successfully made it to the Swiss part of the lake.
> > >
> > > That arrangement may have disintigrated after the war, but if
> > > didn't, then there must be some continuing recognition ofthe "Confine
> > > del Stato" at the place.there
> > >
> > > LN
> >
> >
> > That's a good point! Nevertheless I would believe that any such
> > arrangements were purely practical in nature. The Swiss were not
> > exactly welcoming to people fleeing Nazi Germany, unfortunately;
> > were, e.g., several prosecutions of border guards who had helpedmilitary
> > refugees across the border. So the Swiss may have let German
> > go further than normally warrantable...it was
> >
> > I don't think it was a formal agreement and even then it would
> > probably not bind Austria after it became independent again, as
> > restored with the boundaries of 1937. Plus, legal arrangementsentered
> > into by the occupying power are not normally binding, see e.g.the
> > East Timor case before te ICJ.works on
> >
> > In the National Library here in Vienna there are one or two
> > the legal status of Lake Constance; I'll try to head down andread up
> > sometime in the next weeks.
> >
> > Anton