Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first known map of hnnisv tridominium & its trilines & tripoint
Date: Oct 29, 2006 @ 15:21
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first known map of hnnisv tridominium & its
trilines & tripoint
> 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
>> > 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)
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>