--- XML <
x.maillard@...> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Regarding the CAFR SPM/NFLD boundary, here is my
> point of view:
>
> 1. OK, It does exist a wet boundary.
>
> 2. It does exist (yet theorical since it is located
> on a rock
> shore...) a wet-dry boundary, the wet side being
> French, the dry
> side being Canadian, on both Western and
> Southwestern extremities of
> L'Enfant Perdu de l'Ile Verte and the Western island
> of Little Green
> Island Group.
here is one place where we may differ
for i dont see that the boundary actually follows any
shoreline
but rather consists only of geodesic line segments
that turn
upon these 2 specific shoreline extremity points you
mention
so it may not be technically correct to say that the
boundary line itself has a wet side & a dry side
but only that these 2 points on the boundary line have
a wet side & a dry side
now having said that tho
i also believe that the 3 segments of maritime
boundary that are defined by your 2 special wet&dry
points
may very well cross dry land adjacent to those points
especially at low tide
but probably even at high tide a tiny bit too
in between & touching these 2 special points
& please look for more insertions below
> 3. Does "island" in the 1972-official Agreement
> ("île", in the
> official French version of that Agreement) deal with
> any rock, or
> only with real island? I mean, could we consider
> that the rocks in
> the area of Little Green Island are real islands
> themselves, or only
> rocks?
i agree with lowells recitation in general
tho this is a special case of a maritime boundary &
island allocation line in one
& clearly
at least in the neighborhood of your 2 special points
& perhaps elsewhere
not all the dry land is projecting normal sea
boundaries in this case
for thats how things have been specially arranged
& i see both rocks & islands are referred to in the
treaty by name as such
but i dont see any practical distinction made between
them there
even if they do differ in both size & character
nor do i yet see why you are wanting to draw this
distinction if you are
i believe the nationality of the rocks & the islands
alike are determined by which side of the maritime
boundary they happen to fall on
conceivably there could be fogotten rocks that the
boundary crosses that arent actually mentioned in the
text or shown on any maps
but since it is only a sea boundary i am not sure it
would divide or allocate those rocks so much as ignore
them
> 4. I have requested the French national authorities
> in SPM, asking
> them to confirm to me whether or not they consider
> some slands/rocks
> to be under French sovereignty.
great
that will be most interesting to learn
>
5.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/ls57.ht
> m DMAHC 14340 chart is not clear enough to state
> where does the
> boundary pass through, in that area.
>
> 6. Canadian Hydrograhic Service chart 405 seems to
> me clearer, but I
> did not succeed in finding that chart. When I was in
> New Brunswick,
> I tried to find it at Fredericton but they did not
> have it in
> libraries. Maybe in NFLD or somewhere in Ontario...
true & probably true & so by all means please keep
trying to go for it
> 7. I have seen, in Canada, another map, about
> 1:25000 scale and a
> Canadian-made chart, giving the boundary line.
> However, this map was
> not as efficient as the French IGN 1:25000 chart, as
> the French
> chart shows all the rocks (although not showing the
> boundary line)
> while this Canadian map show the line but only two
> [!] islands for
> Little Green Island group. So OK, all the islands
> were on the
> Canadian side.... but with only 2 islets this can
> not be considered
> as accurate, can it?
no & it sounds like you will need both maps if you
want to know the full allocational inventory
but again i have to wonder why
unless you are looking for divided rocks
which i believe is a chimerical quest in any case
as i indicated above
> In addition to this, I guess Canadian maps (official
> or not) would
> place Green Island area in Canada, while French maps
> would place it
> in France or for half part in France... Perhaps
> international maps,
> foreign charts, would be more realistic...
i dont know about this
the treaty definitely places this entire island
or all but half of a single point of it
in canada
so anyone who thinks that means a half share or any
actual partition of the island is probably wrong
> 8. It is right that a "Sea boundary" is not a land
> border, so... we
> could consider that only the waters are divided, not
> indeed the
> land. This would let one rock be French, or
> Canadian,
this far i think you have it exactly right
but i dont think a purely sea boundary can divide land
even if it happens to cross it
thats what i mean by a metaboundary
or divided by
> both of them, but the waters around this island part
> being under
> another rule than the island part itself.
well even in the case of your 2 special islands
the boundary is still a geodesic line that nicks the
shoreline at a point but is not the shoreline itself
for any distance
> I am not
> sure I am clear
> enough. In anycase, I do not suppose this suggestion
> be reasonable,
> since it would be really silly and I do not think
> the boundary is
> such silly in the reality.
you are great & i am reading you loud & clear except
in the one place above where i wondered about your
motivation
i do rather think boundaries are silly tho & highly
entertaining too
but most entertaining of all when they involve
multipointing
or at least the kind of trypointing you are
endeavoring to do here
> 9. According to the 1972-Agreement, all the rock
> would be Canadian
> (exept the shore on the two mentionned-islets),
even the shore & offshore waters too
up to the geodesic sea boundary line
i believe
for remember
theoretically even if not in physical fact
this line only touches 1 extreme point of these
islands
> if
> we consider that
> being inside the Canadian waters, they must be under
> the same
> sovereignty - but once again, I agree a sea boundary
> can be
> different than a land boundary, e.g. with Enfant
> perdu de l'Ile
> Verte which is Canadian but has, let's say, a kind
> of French
> shore... This Enfant perdu de l'Ile Verte could have
> been divided in
> two parts, leaving one shore being French (Western
> part) and the
> other Canadian (Eastern part)...
again i would say a french point but not really any
french shore
> 10. In the previous Traities (Utrecht, Versailles,
> Vienna, Paris,
> and London convention of 1904), I have never read
> that Green Island
> (and the island group) was divided between French
> and Britain, as
> well as I have never read that these islands were
> given to one
> country or the other.
right i am with you all the way from here to the end
disagreement & confusion did reign
we know that
but all this was finally settled only by this latest
sea border treaty
in 1972
> All these agreements between
> France and
> Britain only tell us about "les îles de
> Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon"
> (St.Pierre-&-Miquelon islands), and this meant not
> only St.Pierre
> island and Miquelon island, but also Langlade island
> (Petite
> Miquelon, now part of Miquelon but at that time two
> separate
> islands) + other smaller islands (which were not
> mentioned in the
> agreement) like île aux Marins (île aux chiens), île
> aux Pigeons,
> île aux Vainqueurs, Grand Colombier, and other
> rocks.
> It can be considered Green Island and Little Green
> Island + the
> rocks in that area (Little Green Island group) were
> included in the
> island surrounding SPM, and so stay French, as well
> as it can not be
> considered.
>
> There were not details, in the treaties...
>
> 11. However, French SPM inhabitants have always
> believed and for
> some still believe (although we here know it is not
> the case since
> 1972) that Green Island +was divided+ between France
> and Britain,
> later Canada, the 1908-lighthouse being on the
> Canadian side.
>
> In addition, the 1907 French channel between SPM and
> NFLD (of which
> I have a chart) divided Green Island in two parts,
> one being French,
> the other British.
>
> For these reasons, we can, I assume, considere that
> +it has existed+
> a real land border (although not marked with
> boundary stones in
> situ) between France and UK, and later between
> France and Canada, on
> Green Island, until 1972. I assume, since 1972,
> Green Island is
> Canadian in its whole part.
>
> 12. It is said that, in 1908, where the NFLD
> lighthouse was built on
> Green Island, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
> in Paris seemed
> to accept - yet not officially) that Green Island
> was included in
> the lands which were given to and later kept by
> Britain along with
> Newfoundland and New France.
>
> "La question fut soumise au ministre des Colonies et
> à celui des
> Affaires Etrangères français qui, sans se prononcer
> formellement à
> ce sujet, semblèrent admettre que l'Ile Verte et les
> petits ilots
> voisins étaient compris parmi les îles adjacentes à
> Terre-Neuve,
> cédées définitivement par la France à l'Angleterre
> aux termes de
> l'article 13 du traité d'Utrecth en 1713 et du
> Traité du 3 septembre
> 1783 et que, par suite, cette puissance était
> investie du droit de
> souveraineté à son égard malgré l'absence de toutes
> stipulations
> expresses à ce sujet. Le Gouvernement français ne
> s'opposa donc pas
> à la construction de la sirène à brume puisqu'il
> n'était pas dans
> les intentions des autorités terre-neuviennes de
> modifier les droits
> de pêche dans ces parages". I disagree with this.
> Perhaps the French
> Government had, at that time, seemed, to consider
> Green Island area
> was not French, but it is not based on official
> grounds. No treaty
>
=== message truncated ===
booo
not truncated by me
the rest is still here tho
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/19676
wonderful dissertation
& let me know if we have missed anything of
significance
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com