Subject: busting my favorite bggrtr hypothesis
Date: Oct 08, 2005 @ 19:49
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next
Prev    Post in Time    Next


trying to imagine some legal basis for the dry bggrtr
position on kavak island you all know & love
til now i had been supposing it could have been
explained by the fact that the 1923 treaty of lausanne
especially articles 2 & 5
& tangentially 6
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/lausanne.html
provided the 1926 grtr demarcation commission with
some discretion over the exact border alignment they
were actualizing on the ground
so as to sidestep anticipated demographic as well as
economic & administrative problems

& accordingly i was surmising out loud that their 1926
athens protocol & mapping
which i recently mentioned & located a buyable copy of
at 45 euros
would show that the tripartition of kavak was their
original doing

& was even surmising to myself that this report might
also explain their very reasons for doing it
as well as specify the necessary delineation that gave
rise to the vista
whether they themselves actually installed its
demarcation or not

& that their doing this by their authority would make
this dry tripoint position fully legal in all 3
countries
without any need for a treaty of cession from bulgaria
to greece


but i believe i have to abandon this expectation after
all
because the ibs studies themselves do mention this
treaty & commission & protocol
& even draw their maps based on its mapping
without acknowledging any such change of the tripoint
position

& perhaps more to the point
tho the 1923 treaty mentioned & concerned bulgaria &
bggr also
the 1926 commission it provided for was not actually
empowered by it to mark or affect bggr in any way
but only grtr

& all this makes me all the more reluctant to spend
the 45 euros
tho still eager enough to find a library copy of this
text & mapping
so i can at least confirm my belief that it really
does contain no clue

as well as pick up the exact distances from both bgtr
320 & 320a
to go with the 60 meter distance from grtr 1 given by
the ibs
that it probably does also specify
for gaining additional fixes on the legal tripoint
position

i mean
if the tripoint is in fact as geodetically determinate
as it appears to be
rather than in a living fluctuation with the median of
the main channel as the bggr & grtr convergents are
specified to be

for it cant very well be both fixed & fluid at once
& so there is in fact a small remaining puzzle or
loose end there too

like
how do these bggr & grtr midchannel riverine
boundaries ever even reach this geodetic tripoint
seeing as they are described in such different terms


still remaining fully intact tho
is the hypothesis of a separate treaty of cession from
bulgaria to greece

& also the hypothesis of customary possession
from whatever illusion or misunderstanding it may have
originated
which would not necessarily be supported by any
paperwork
yet might still be accepted by all 3 parties

& finally the hypothesis that the ibs studies were
always & are still correct
whatever they actually do mean about the fixity or
fluidity of the trifinium




__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/