Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first known map of hnnisv tridominium & its trilines & tripoint
Date: Oct 28, 2006 @ 14:21
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> wow yes thanx againhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/ish/ish_ijudgments/ish_ijudgment_19920911.pdf
> & 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
> > > page 265 here is not in fact riddled with this
> > problem
> > >
> >
>
> > > but it is hard to understand what the need or=== message truncated ===
> > 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
>