I think that the distinction is somewhat different from the one that Mike finds
below.
The post-colonial permanence of boundaries agreed upon by colonial powers
(compared to those agreed upon by post-colonial occupying powers) is based on
the perceived sovereignty of the colonial power over the colony (not merely the
longer duration of its rule); whereas a subsequent occupier is perceived as
temporarily suspending or even usurping the sovereignty of the occupied state
and therefore incompetent to give consent for it.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:15 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Tripoint Deutsches Reich - Schweiz - �sterreich
1927
>
>
> but it is interesting & i think highly ironical that there is a
> single grand loophole to the general principle that i believe you
> have otherwise correctly enunciated here
> which is that all the arrangements entered into by the european
> occupying powers of colonial empires everywhere else in the world are
> indeed normally the first & foremost thing that is binding in those
> places
>
> & the boundaries in particular that were made by the european
> occupiers have been very conservatively adhered to in nearly all
> postcolonial areas ever since
>
> so i think perhaps the point you may have been reaching for there is
> that occupying powers who are soon rebuffed usually leave no border
> changes behind
> as at 1939atde1945
> whereas those who stay for a longer time naturally do
> as at 1848mxus2005
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
> > <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> >
> > Plus, legal arrangements entered
> > > > into by the occupying power are not normally binding, see e.g.
> the
> > > > East Timor case before te ICJ.
> >
> > true but do you mean the international court of justice
> >
> > & is there really such a case there now
> >
> > that would be interesting
> >
> > last i heard
> > this was not thought to be possible
> > because oz had withdrawn from the jurisdiction of that court
> >
> > for example
> > http://www.timorseajustice.org/law.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>