--- XML <
x.maillard@...> wrote:
> 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.
yes & i realize this is silly but the one that
apparently has no name is nevertheless called
repeatedly
the southwesternmost island of the little green island
group
so it could be said to have that for a name
however cumbersome or comical
also
i have just gratefully received the related nick
correction in your following message
> > 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
>
> 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.
ok
& a mighty fine map & presentation it is
but what i meant by this is on a still finer level of
detail than even this map affords
& my guess hinges only on the fact that the turnpoint
angles are fairly acute while the land forms they
enclose are relatively obtuse
obviously it is much easier to nick anything at only a
single point with a wide angle turnpoint than with an
enclosing one
also
even taking romain & his gis program at their word on
the geocoords
since we cant actually see the lines of latitude &
longitude there
the treaty nevertheless gives these coords only to
approximate integral degminsecs & in no particular
datum
so clearly the textual description must trump the
supposed geopositions
as i think he also realizes in finally crediting &
preferring the red line
however i dont understand on what basis he ascribes
french nationality to the enfant perdu de l ile verte
there is apparently more than one enfant perdu
or else the agreement errs in ascribing first one
nationality & then the other to it
but the enfant perdu of turnpoint 4 is clearly
designated by the treaty as canada only
> 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.
yes i wish we could somehow inspire our resident
canadians to give a call to ottawa or their local map
store for this
> 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'... :(
could you visit them in paris for the thrill of just
eyeballing it
& perhaps sketch the essential little parts of it for
us
> > 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.
yes i agree
it isnt entirely clear which possibility is operative
but i share your assumption
> 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.
still you are quite right to question this
as i think you also said in the truncated part of this
message
the island allocations that arent specifically
mentioned in the agreement may be purely an american
interpretation
> 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?
not sure but likoma & chisumulu may be the only ones
in the world
> 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?
i would be more surprised if it divided them than if
it merely allocated them
> > > 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
>
=== message truncated ===
apologies
my network is spotty today besides
& i hope we didnt lose anything essential
but please follow up if so
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com