Hello,
OK for 'a normal high tide rock is an island'.
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos
<aletheiak@...> wrote:
> > 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
That's correct. You are right, there is no boundary 'shore' at all,
but only a shore point (actually : 2 points, once on each of the
mentionned rocks: Enfant Perdu de l'Ile Verte and the other one that
has no name) that is a boundary point. And the rest of
the 'shoreline' on each of these 2 rocks is not boundary.
> 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
Yes, I agree with what you point out: according to the 1972
agreement, only these two points - and nothing else - make 2 wet/dry
boundary points. The rest of the shoreline is not boundary.
> 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 thos
> points especially at low tide
I am not sure about this, if I consider Romain's chart on
http://us.geocities.com/romain_hodapp/Ile-verte.html
I do not see other rocks crossed nor touched by the sea boundary
line in that area, taking into account the description of the
location of the turning points - I mean: the red line Romain draw.
Obviously, this IGN chart he used does not give the boundary, so
there is still no confirmation of any line, only suggestions.
> but probably even at high tide a tiny bit too
> in between & touching these 2 special points
CHS chart 4490 would certainly give us a clue regarding this
hypothetis. Since I am not anymore in North America, I have more
difficulties to find it, here in Europe.
The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris has answered me they
have a chart with their 1972 agreement copy, but the chart is said
to be 'too big to be copied'... :(
The Canadian Ministry of Foreigh Affairs at Ottawa answered to me
they do not [?] have a chart attached as appendix to that 1972
agreement...
> i believe the nationality of the rocks & the islands
> alike are determined by which side of the maritime
> boundary they happen to fall on
So we have two possibilities, is that right?
1. The Sea Boundary, as described by the 1972 agreement, determines
the sovereignty of the national waters and also determines the
soveignty of the rocks, that have the nationality of the waters in
which they are included.
2. The Sea Boundary, as described in this 1972 agreement, does only
determines the sovereignty of the national waters, but does not
determines any land sovereignty - it is a Sea boundary line, not a
land one - so the question of the sovereignty of the islands is not
determined, and some can be French (what I do not believe).
Personally, I would assume possibility #1 is the correct hypothesis,
I do not think possibility #2 is accurated, but might be wrong.
In the utopistic case of point #2, could we imagine Green Island (or
other islands)'s land is divided between France and Canada [Let's
say Green Island was, as the custom said, divided in the past -
although no official and international text has never said it was,
or was not, until 1972. Does the 1972 agreement say it is now
Canadian in its whole? the agreement talked about national 'waters'
and fisheries only], while being entirely within Canadian waters? -
although I do not believe it is the case here.
In addition, I do not know if anywhere else around the world there
are islands under one rule located in the national waters of another
countries. Do you know if there are some?
It is not similar, but as you might know, until a precise date when
they did renounce to their right, some French municipalities
strangely still had some borough islands and 'mainland' parts
located on the other side of the Rhine river, i.e. in German Grand-
duchy of Baden. These French villages had thus lands located not on
the French side, but on the foreign side. This was due to the fact
the Rhine river used to often move in the old days.
> but since it is only a sea boundary i am not sure it
> would divide or allocate those rocks so much as ignore
> them
Right. That's still the question: shouldn't a sea boundary only
divide waters, not lands?
> > 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
Chimerical quest, yes.
OK. Let's stay with two only FRCA boundary wet/dry 'shorepoints'
(not shoreline).
> the treaty definitely places this entire island
> or all but half of a single point of it
> in canada
Just about this: the 1972 agreement does not say exactly this. It
says 'Enfant Perdu de l'Ile Verte (Canada)' so we can consider this
rock is Canadian. However, it does not say the western rock of the
Little Green Island group is Canadian. It says nothing, just
indicating where is located the wet/dry turning point on this rock.
The text that says that the rock is left to Canada is not the
official agreement text, nor the official appendix. It is only a US
interpretation of the agreement.
> > 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
OK, that is clear.
> 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
Yes, but it is a boundary sea line:
- one side is French national waters while the other side is
Canadian federal waters
- on one point (the turning point), one side is French national
waters wile the other side in land (the rock)
Is the rock Canadian? Nothing says this, unless we consider it is
Canadian because located in Canadian waters. Could a land boundary
line exist on this rock? This would let the rock having one Canadian
side in Canadian waters, one French side in Canadian waters, and one
point one the French side but with French waters. (This was purely
imagination, however land borders are sometimes really weird, just
looki at really little tiny semi-enclave/exclave of 1 meter large
located on the land:) Swiss border and surrounded by French lands on
more than 90% of its surface)
[talking about CH: for 60 years my ancestors lived in their mill
house and dependencies located directly on the FRCH boundary, more
exactly the property and 'garden' limit ending exactly with the
boundary stone]
> > 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
OK.
> 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
I agree.
> again i would say a french point but not really any
> french shore
I agree.
> > 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
I have heard that one treaty said something about the waters being
divided by the SPM-NFLD channel but have not read/found it yet.
> 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
Sorry for having been quite long for only small turning points,
Xavier