wow yes thanx again
& understood & agreed again
up to a point
but still i hesitate to abandon the idea of the inner
tridominial area
the unseen 1900 hnni agreement may well preclude the
existence of such an area
as you seem to assume
& perhaps we wont know for sure til we actually read
it
but the judgment does indicate in paragraph 405 that
the delimitation effected by that agreement was
substantially an application of the equidistance
principle
after having just in paragraph 404 reiterated the
principle of the 3 mile littoral belts of exclusive
jurisdiction
about which there doesnt seem to be any question
within the gulf
outside the gulf there may well be up to 12nm of
territorial seas
but inside the gulf there appears to be no basis for
assuming any exclusively sovereign waters beyond the
various 3nm littoral belts
so i have no difficulty seeing & agreeing that the
equidistance principle may have been employed in the
past & or may be hypothetically invoked in the present
or future to delimit areas where the 3nm belts overlap
of which there are clearly 2 shown on the sketch map i
began with
& a third inferrable off frame to the right
but i still dont see how equidistance could have been
used to divvy up the enclosed area in the inner gulf
that is beyond all 3 of the 3nm belts
moreover i dont yet see how it could be fair to assume
that there even are any waters in the gulf completely
surrounded by the hn & ni belts
even if it were fair to assume that these countries
had the right to appropriate & or allocate such waters
--- "Lowell G. McManus" <
lgm@...> wrote:
> After an examination of your new-found PDF file, I
> must change my
> earlier opinion that the central portion of the
> southeastern lobe of the
> gulf constitutes a second tridominial area distinct
> from that along the
> central segment of the gulf's closing line. The
> judgment of the court
> finds a tridominium in the gulf, but makes it
> subject to two physical
> limitations: (1) the three-mile littoral belts
> previously agreed to by
> the states, and (2) the 1900 agreement between
> Honduras and Nicaragua.
> I had first assumed that the latter pertained to
> their land boundary's
> intersection with the gulf, but the matter is
> specifically addressed in
> paragraphs 404 (PDF page 250) and 413 (PDF pages 254
> and 255). Here, we
> learn that the two contracting states had
> bilaterally delimited
> sovereignty in part of the gulf by a line that
> "terminates well short of
> the closing line of the Gulf" and that El Salvador
> had (perhaps
> unwittingly) accepted the same. While the 1992
> court decision
> incorporates the 1900 agreement by reference, it
> does not describe it
> further. However, where could it be than in the
> southeastern lobe? If
> it is a fair assumption that Honduras and Nicaragua
> would have
> partitioned all of the waters that are either
> overlapped or surrounded
> by their respective three-mile littoral belts, then
> there is no
> tridominium other than the one along the central
> segment of the closing
> line. (A full description of the 1900 delimitation
> at page 710 of the
> 1917 volume of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
> LAW should tell the
> tale one way or the other.)
>
> I think this is the answer to your first-mentioned
> conundrum below. As
> for the second, I agree that the duplication of text
> is an artifact of
> poor editing.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first known map of
> hnnisv tridominium & its
> trilines & tripoint
>
>
> > thanx
> > i am much obliged as well as much inclined to
> agree
> > & not just because i like the idea of making a
> fresh
> > triarea discovery
> > & thus getting 2 tridominia with associated
> trilines &
> > tripoints for the price of 1
> > but just because it seems right
> >
> > but the 2 things i didnt understand about the
> legal
> > text below
> > which made me pause before coming to any firm
> > conclusions
> > were
> > why the waters at the central portion of the
> closing
> > line appear to be specially distinguished from the
> > waters outside the belt of exclusive seas
> generally
> > &
> > why the curious apparent or actual reduplication
> in
> > the text
> >
> > & i can dismiss the latter of these puzzles as
> being
> > the probable result of a clerical error
> > since this version of the text at paragraph 432 on
> pdf
> > page 265 here is not in fact riddled with this
> problem
> >
>
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/ish/ish_ijudgments/ish_ijudgment_19920911.pdf
> > but it is hard to understand what the need or
> basis
> > for the former conundrum might be
> >
> > but maybe you can elucidate this too
> >
> >
> > & also
> > to further advance the tridominioscopy
> > i have just noticed in section 3 of the
> continuation
> > of paragraph 432 of the judgment
> > on the pdf page following the one above
> > that there is added
> > attached to the tridominial waters inside the
> central
> > portion of the gulf closing line a zone of
> tridominial
> > territorial seas outside of it
> > presumably extending 12 nautical miles seaward
> > since all 3 of these countries can & do claim at
> least
> > that much territorial sea in the outer sea
> >
> >
> > so
> > to sum up
> > 2 tridominal triareas do appear to exist
> > one of them simple & one compound
> >
> > & if so
> > then the simple or inner one is contiguous to all
> 3
> > exclusively sovereign territories
> > & is thus ringed by a chain of 3 trilines & 3
> > tripoints
> > of which all but the hnnisvhnni tripoint are at
> least
> > partly shown in colored dots on the pdf map i
> began
> > with
> > hopefully still linked below
> >
> > & the outer tridominial area
> > comprising the mentioned & depicted internal
> > tridominial waters within the gulf plus a roughly
> > rectangular 12nm extension from these of
> tridominial
> > territorial seas outside the gulf
> > is contiguous only with the exclusive sovereign
> > territories of ni & sv
> > & is a true exclave of hn as previously observed
> > & thus has only the 2 trilines & their single
> tripoint
> > mentioned below
> > if one doesnt count its seaward interface with
> > everyones water & its adjoining tripoints with
> > everyones water & ni & sv respectively
> >
> > but counting all of these
> > & why shouldnt we whether in the interests of full
> > disclosure
> > or because we are here in everyones land ourselves
> at
> > bp
> > then it is now looking like a total of 2
> tridominial
> > triareas ringed by a total of 6 tridominial
> trilines &
> > 6 tridominial tripoints
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...> wrote:
> >
> >> The lobe of the Gulf of Fonseca that begins at
> the
> >> kilometer scale and
> >> north arrow runs about 20 miles southeastward and
> >> has an average width
> >> of about eight miles between opposing points of
> >> land. Therefore, there
> >> is plenty of room within it for tridominium under
> >> the provisions of the
> >> court decision below. If the Gulf is jointly
> held,
> >> subject only to the
> >> sovereign three-mile territorial seas, I see no
> >> reason why the
> >> southeastern lobe should not be joint, as well
> as
> >> the small area along
> >> the historic bay closing line.
> >>
> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com
(
http://www.yahoo.com/preview)