interesting
but why get so complicated as to introduce this compound abstraction
of perceived sovereignty when it is simply that the spoils always go
to the victor who can hold on to them but not to the victor who cant
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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@y...>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >