Boudewijn Büch (Eilanden, 8th reprint of the 2nd., improved ed.,
1996) talks about his pursuits to find any information on this
geographic oddity. The name of the islands he uses is Penguin
Islands. He mentions these islands as being part of this group:
Hollams Bird Island (also Voëleiland or Hollands Vogeleiland),
Mercury I., Ichabod I., Halifax I., Possession I., Albatros Rock,
Pomona I., Plumpudding I., Sinclair I., Seehunds I., Pinguin I., and
Roastbeef I. Another island is German acc. to a German atlas from
1921 (nostalgia?), but South-African acc. to a map from 1974:
Schwarze Huk/Black Rock. According to Büch, the boundary treaty of
1886 between Great-Britain and Germany explicitely mentions Walvis
Bay and all islands lying off the coast being British territory.
Hollam's Bird Island, being the biggest of the lot, even had
artillery on it, pointing towards Germany (SWA). Büch also mentions
some very small rocks that apparently did not fall under the treaty
(or, more likely I think, were so small that Germany just assumed
they were theirs and Britain thought it wasn't worth making a fuss),
and were German: Gallodivia Riff, Marschall Felsen, Nordfells,
Südfells, Palgrave, Hogden, and Südinsel. A little map he copied from
a German atlas has the name Penguininseln (Südafr.) written all along
the Namibian coast. If you look closely, you can see some little
spots along the coastline.
Peter S.
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@h...> wrote:
> Exactly, this was the problem. Just like S.Afr claimed Walvis Bay
for 4
> years, 1990-94, then finally gave it back. The islands were also a
source of
> contention, Namibia feeling it would have a ridiculously fragmented
> territoial waters if S Afr kept them, and S Afr basing its claim to
i
> believe old British Guano claims to the islands, which were covered
in
> birdie doo-doo.
> B
>
>
> >From: Peter Smaardijk <peter.smaardijk@a...>
> >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction
> >Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:05:03 +0100
> >
> >I still don't see it. In that case, from the Namibian perspective,
these
> >islands are Namibian (they
> >are included within the base line). So no South-African
territorial waters
> >whatsoever. From the
> >South-African point of view, Namibia has no right to include these
islands
> >in their base line. So SA
> >territorial waters have a boundary with the outer sea, because
they are
> >further out to sea than the
> >shore. So we have two view points (both with no enclaves) and NO
official
> >situation.
> >
> >Peter S.
> >
> >Brendan Whyte wrote:
> >
> > > No, i don't think so. The islands were only just offshore.
Namibia will
> > > include them within her baselines and so claim 12nm from the
islands.
> > > S.Africa included just the islands and 12nm from them. Same
effect.
> > > Remember that this was just while the islands were disputed
between 1990
> >and
> > > maybe 1994 when Walvis Bay was given back. I think the cliam to
the
> >islands
> > > was given up then too.
> > >
> > > B
> > >
> > > >From: David Mark <dmark@g...>
> > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] maritime sovereignty and
jurisdiction
> > > >Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:14:58 -0500 (EST)
> > > >
> > > >Peter, I think you are exactly correct, which is why
such "territorial
> >sea
> > > >enclaves" are so rare, perhaps totally non-existent. The 12-
mile french
> > > >territorial sea zone around St. Pierre et Micquelon is not
enclosed by
> > > >Canada's territorial waters.
> > > >David
> > > >
> > > >On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Peter Smaardijk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But this is strange. The width of the band of territorial
waters is
> >the
> > > >same from the islands as
> > > > > from the shore, I would think. The terr. waters of such an
island
> >can
> > > >only be completely surrounded
> > > > > by the terr. waters of the mainland if the island is in a
bay of
> >which
> > > >the bay heads are so close
> > > > > that the terr. waters close off the bay. But I would think
in that
> >case
> > > >the base line would pass in
> > > > > between the bay heads, the water would become internal
water, and
> >the
> > > >island an enclave.
> > > > >
> > > > > In short: the terr. waters of the island (let's take the
Namibian
> > > >example) reaches further west than
> > > > > the terr. waters of Namibia.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter S.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brendan Whyte wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Afetr Namibia's independence, S.Africa claimed many of
the islands
> > > >along its
> > > > > > coast, often little more than stacks. The Terr. Sea they
had was
> >often
> > > > > > within that of Namibia fomr the sketch maps I have seen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
____
> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> >http://www.hotmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
___
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com