Subject: Re: Cyprus - SBA Maritime Boundaries<br/>
Date: Jul 23, 2005 @ 11:30<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="18143.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18148.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic18143.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="18146.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18148.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1818902154">--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;L. A. Nadybal&quot; &lt;lnadybal@c...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; I just posted in &quot;photos&quot; a smalll version of the map of the nautical<br/>
&gt; boundaries that the US State Department created according to input<br/>
&gt; from the British, after DoS was unable to get the map attached to the<br/>
&gt; treaty.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Anyone who would like the large scan can ask off-line.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; It is clear that the eastern SBA forms a closed area - the E & W<br/>
&gt; borders meet about 32 nautical miles off shore (within which there are<br/>
&gt; international waters eliminating any chance of the area being an<br/>
&gt; enclave or an exclave.  The British claim 3 miles of sovereign<br/>
&gt; territory off shore under existing treaties to which the British<br/>
&gt; subscribe, and the Cypriots claim 12.  <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; With the SBA also comprised of a pumping station or whatever it is,<br/>
&gt; the sea boundaries would be incomplete, unless the pumping station on<br/>
&gt; the coast has no maritime component (and is therefore enclaved).  Can<br/>
&gt; anyone help with that?  <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; LN<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>yes <br/>
as you have somewhat correctly recalled<br/>
the power station was believed to have no maritime component when last reported<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/2158">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/2158</a><br/>
<br/>
but also<br/>
beyond the claimed territorial seas of 3nm & 12nm from coastal baselines respectively<br/>
the boundaries shown on your map were purely hypothetical<br/>
as was explained in its accompanying source document<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/ls049.pdf">http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/ls049.pdf</a><br/>
& they most probably still are<br/>
<br/>
so here again it is only your idea of what is clear that is confused<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
assumptive reasoning <br/>
while sometimes very useful<br/>
can if carelessly applied actually erode clarity<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
no multipoints however were injured or even considered in the making of these messages</div>