Although the Internet usually provides a mixture of gaga and truth I have consulted Google with "Grenzverlauf" and "Bodensee" - "course of boundary" and "lake of Constance" and have come to many hits, the first 2 of which are pointing to the same fact: The Grenzverlauf has not been regulated yet.

http://www.rc-bergedorf.de/wanderrudern/Bodensee.htm

Nach ratlosen Blicken, konnten wir aus einem Touri- Führer entnehmen, dass der genaue Grenzverlauf im Bodensee zwischen Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz bis heute nicht geklärt ist! translates to: "...we could take from a tourist guide that the exact Grenzverlauf in the Bodensee between D, A and CH has not been clarified yet"

The second link is particularly "official" since it comes from the highest German financial court and touches the eminently important question to which authority and Country the tax would have to be paid that a salesperson is due when selling something on a tourist boat in the Bodensee. I am too lazy to translate the verdict given under this link, but it is a goldmine for everybody who likes bureaucracy:

http://www.steuer.bayern.de/umsatzsteuer/content/rechtsprechung/BFH/AZ_2001/V_R_30_01.asp

BUNDESFINANZHOF, Urteil vom 29. August 2002 V R 30/01
Vorinstanz: FG Baden-Württemberg vom 8. Februar 2001 14 K 131/00
(EFG 2001, 929)
UStG 1980 §§ 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, Abs. 2; 3 Abs.6
ZG § 2 Abs. 3 Nr. 1
GG Art. 25

1. Die Internationale Schifffahrts- und Hafenordnung für den Bodensee (ISHO) vom 22. September 1867 wurde durch das Übereinkommen über die Schifffahrt auf dem Bodensee vom 1. Juni 1973 (BGBl II 1975, 1406) aufgehoben.

2. Es bleibt unentschieden, ob der Bodensee als real geteilt anzusehen ist. Selbst wenn dies nicht der Fall sein sollte, stünden der Steuerbarkeit von dortigen Kioskumsätzen auf deutschen Schiffen ab dem Jahr 1984 keine allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechts i.S. des Art. 25 GG entgegen.

Apparently there is a convention about boat traffic on the Bodensee dated 1st June 1973, published in the Federal Register II 1975, page 1406.

Happy research!

Wolfgang

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: aletheia kallos [mailto:aletheiak@...]
Gesendet: Samstag, 8. Januar 2005 16:20
An: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Tripoint Deutsches Reich - Schweiz - o?=sterreich 1927

& will everyone by all means please get as excited as you like

while also bearing in mind that seeing borders & tripoints indicated on maps

&or even described in doctoral theses etc

does not in itself necessarily make them the actually effective borders & multipoints

if we have learned anything about trypointing during these past 5 & a half years of bp

it is that we need to see the texts of the operative agreements themselves before we can feel very confident about our or anyone elses opinions

& we have indeed been looking for the actual compacts for an atchde tripoint or triarea or condo or whatever there is there almost since the beginning of bp

but thus far without any actual success

indeed i believe the 2 most definitive messages on this topic

which i actually dont think have been surpassed in all the subsequent flurries of attention & research & speculation that have been devoted to it

was this original opinion offered by 2 geography professors who had studied the matter

http://egroups.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/293

& the opinion of an ibru affiliated junior encyclopedia we have been calling gideons bible

tho it contains a few minor mistakes due to the exigencies of oversimplification

& which is given in the third item or roughly midway thru

http://egroups.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/770

& a lot of water has flowed thru the bodensee since

but so far

i still believe thats all she ever actually wrote about atchde

atchde present &or atchde past

for it is all the same in the absence of any texts

so to me it is still looking like

a presumptive default equidistance tripoint

& any evidence of any actual agreements you may find will be very big news indeed here

&

in light of this apparent void of real data

any speculation about a coincident ghost quadripoint seems even more fanciful

& in any case

the fact that a bunch of maps all show a tripoint differently probably doesnt mean that the tripoint has been moving about so much as it means the maps are all exhibiting slightly different shades of ignorance about it

pete2784west <pete2784west@...> wrote:

Bravo to you Anton! I have found yet another map from even earlier times. The military survey map of Austria - Hungary from 1910 depicts again what I already mentioned before. The austrian piece of Bodensee is placed between point (GE-AT)where the river Laiblach enters the lake Bodensee and where the Rhein river (today Alter Rhein) enters the Bodensee, only the difference this time is that the (ghost) tripoint is completely wet, that is, somewhere midstream. Couple of other atlases I've been looking into show that the (ghost) tripoint is completely wet in the middle of Bodensee, I gather an equal distance from the shore of Baden- W|rttemberg and the mouth of Rhein river. By moving this point more to midways of the lake, the Austrians have got more of the water. To get it even more interesting, this point is most likely also the point where the border between Bayern and Baden-W|rttemberg ends. This makes it a (ghost) quadripoint of some sort, I believe. Petter --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote: > > 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 Ber|cksichtigung des > Fischereirechtes / eingereicht von: Gernot Klocker , 1996 . - 59 Bl. > - Innsbruck, Univ., Dipl.-Arb., 1997). > > This work seems to be well researched and the author holds the opinion > that there exist distinct boundaries on the lake. The Austrian > 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 talk > about the boundary in Lake Constance, but there is a map attached to > it on which the above mentioned line is indicated. > > b) Official Austrian catastral maps of the lake and its environs have > adopted exactly this line as the Austrian boundary. > > c) Only in 1976 did Austria finally settle on the condominium claim, > after making different claims throughout history. Germany and > Switzerland both argue for straight boundaries and against the > condominium solution. > > His arguments are good, but from an international law perspective I am > not entirely convinced. > 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 tribunal > that this is the official position of the state concerned and whether > this prejudices it from holding other claims. > c) He did not go into details of what the previous Austrian position > was, so this would have to be looked at in more detail. > > 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" <lnadybal@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- 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 qualification of > the > > > > whole lake as a condominium has been always disputed. > > > > > > However, during the "Anschluo?=" period, the Germans and the Swiss > must > > > 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 it > > > didn't, then there must be some continuing recognition of the "Confine > > > del Stato" at the place. > > > > > > 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; there > > were, e.g., several prosecutions of border guards who had helped > > refugees across the border. So the Swiss may have let German military > > go further than normally warrantable... > > > > I don't think it was a formal agreement and even then it would > > probably not bind Austria after it became independent again, as it was > > restored with the boundaries of 1937. Plus, legal arrangements entered > > into by the occupying power are not normally binding, see e.g. the > > East Timor case before te ICJ. > > > > In the National Library here in Vienna there are one or two works on > > the legal status of Lake Constance; I'll try to head down and read up > > sometime in the next weeks. > > > > Anton

Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! Get yours free!

__________ NOD32 1.961 (20041230) Information __________

Diese E-Mail wurde vom NOD32 Antivirus System gepr|ft
http://www.nod32.com