some slight corrections
i see now that the high seas northward of 60 south latitude have actually been de jure
everyones land only since 1994
when unclos began kicking in legally at long last
& finally erected at least the beds of the high seas into a human heritage area
tho not at all necessarily these seas themselves nor the air spaces above them
which have evidently remained only de facto everyones land
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part11-2.htm
especially articles 136 & 140 paragraph 1
likewise our everyonese legal grasp on antarctic lands & seas may be no less tenuous
& may not necessarily form such a seamless whole with the unclos human heritage area
insofar as the long supposed de jure foreclosure of territorial sovereignty from antarctica
& the southern ocean is proving far from complete or unanimous
& the antarctic treaty area differs qualitatively too from the unclos area
http://www.geocities.com/enriquearamburu/DERANT/ARTS/artic2.html
so de jure we may be skating on thin ice in places
but de facto we are still walking on water
also
there is evidently a difference of understanding as to whether the high seas begin at the
outer limits of the territorial seas
as exemplified by the geneva treaty of 1958
or whether they dont kick in until the outer limits of the eezs
as in unclos
for example
http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses_masters/LA425_Law_of_the_Sea/
LA425_topic4.html
but i dont think there is any doubt that everyonese sovereignty legally underlies all eezs as
well as everywhere else outside the territorial seas
& no matter if the united nations as our supposed trustees have legally dealt away some of
our best feathers & bedding & blankets to some of their members
for it is still reassuring & even highly gratifying to glance at the globe as a whole & realize
we control the greatest part of it & indeed many times more of it than all the other
countries in the world combined
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
wrote:
> Good reply. Thanks for the discussion of your points.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:10 PM
> Subject: everyones land was Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Cyprus - SBA Maritime
> Boundaries
>
>
> > thanx
> > several good points
> >
> > land is indeed not the same as water
> >
> > but all territory
> > be it land or water or variable on the surface
> > is solid land at base
> >
> > in fact earlier discussions have entertained 3
> > distinct modalities of everyones land
> > namely
> > everyones land proper &
> > everyones water &
> > everyones ice
> >
> > & i would add now on further reflection that because
> > everyones ice occurs upon both everyones land &
> > everyones water
> > there are thus perhaps really only 2 fundamental
> > modalities
> > namely
> > wet or liquid
> > & dry or solid
> >
> > or else
> > there may be as many as 4 or more modalities
> > namely
> > wet
> > dry
> > wet icy
> > dry icy
> > & variously variable
> >
> > any or all of which however can for convenience be
> > subsumed under the single rubric & indeed the single
> > nationhood of
> > everyones land
> >
> > & we have been designating all of it in just this way
> > for some time
> > i think because there is probably no better or truer
> > name available for it when considered all together
> >
> > & it includes de jure not only all of antarctica but
> > all land & seas south of 60 degrees south latitude
> > since 1959
> > as well as all high seas everywhere
> > since i think 1973 or 1981
> > but probably numerous other specks of unclaimed dry
> > land & rocks north of 60slat
> > & perhaps various other legally uncertain &
> > traditional no mans lands on continents other than
> > antarctica as well
> >
> >
> > & indeed there is nothing at all wrong & everything
> > right with the term high seas
> > so long as one realizes that these are in every case
> > situated within & or on top of our beloved greater
> > everyones land
> > & that their true nationality & sovereignty is always
> > everyonese
> >
> > admittedly this is perhaps more credit than they are
> > usually given by law
> >
> > the united nations for example consider the high seas
> > to be a human heritage area under united nations
> > trusteeship
> > per unlos
> > while they confer some of our sovereign rights away to
> > adjacent states for up to 197nm & even beyond where
> > continental shelves protrude beyond standard eezs
> >
> > but they are only the united nations
> >
> > of which everyones land is after all not a member
> >
> > the everyonese view is that there is more than just
> > the united nations
> > & that in fact everything & not just everyones land
> > belongs to everyone & not just to the countries of the
> > world
> > because the world is in fact equally free for all
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> >
> >> While I understand the concept of your "everyones
> >> land," I think it
> >> inappropriate to apply the term "land" to what is
> >> not land, but rather sea. The
> >> largest true Everyone's LAND would be part (or all)
> >> of Antarctica (depending on
> >> who you choose to believe)--and about a quarter of
> >> Antarctica is doubtfully
> >> land, really just a solid sea, the ice-earth
> >> interface being well below sea
> >> level. (Somehow, an iceberg sitting on the sea
> >> bottom never quite qualified as
> >> land in my view.)
> >>
> >> So, what is wrong with the age-old and widely
> >> accepted term "high seas"?
> >>
> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA