ok good
so assuming if you would for now that the 1900
agreement delimits hnni in the gulf only within the
3nm belt
we would have as a result no hnnisv tripoint per se
there in the gulf
nor anywhere else
but an inner hnnisv tridominial triarea instead
so in effect
at this only multi overlapping territorial convergency
in the world
a potential multi point becomes expanded or exploded
instead into an actual multi area
& its complementary multiarea
aka the outer tridominium at the gulf closing line
is topologically quite distinct from the inner one in
being a triarea without a triconvergency
for it is sandwiched between only 2 of the 3
constituent sovereign territories rather than wedged
in among all 3
so what we would be or really are looking at here
all together
is a multipoint that has exploded on the spot into a
multiarea
plus
a much larger discontiguous or exclavic multiarea
& i would add that this relative size difference
between the 2 areas is despite the fact that the
sketch map suggests the inner one would be much larger
than the outer one
for in reality it would be quite the contrary
as the sketch map is mistaken in showing the inner
triarea widening to the east
where it actually must shrink & narrow into a long
tail
just as mistaken as it is btw in suggesting the outer
triarea ends at the gulf closing arrow
or in suggesting that the 3nm limits continue as such
outside the gulf
for after all it is only a crude sketch
& as you may be able to judge if you compare the maps
again with everything we believe we know about the
legal tridominium
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701512830/Gulf_of_Fonseca.html
http://www.laprensa.com.sv/nacion/Las%20aguas%20en%20condominio.pdf
the outer triarea will comprise more than 100 square
nautical miles of combined territorial & internal seas
while the inner one
being perhaps equally as long or longer but nowhere
near as wide
will comprise only a small fraction of that area
--- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...> wrote:
> When I wrote of an inner sinus within the gulf's
> southeastern lobe that
> was surrounded by the littoral belts of Honduras and
> Nicaragua, I was
> not looking at the LA PRENSA sketch map, the link to
> which had been lost
> at the time. What I thought I remembered as
> littoral belt overlap
> between these two states in the vicinity of the
> kilometer scale was
> erroneous. While there is an inner sinus (whether
> partitioned or not),
> it does involve about a mile of closure by the
> Salvadorian littoral belt
> at its western end.
>
> You are correct that our next resort must be to the
> 1917 volume of AJIL
> or another source of the 1900 HNNI agreement.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- 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
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)