yikes but no
for here is the 1900 hnni text verbatim per the ibs
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS036.pdf
In the various applicable documents, the boundary has
been described as follows:
(1) From the point known by the name of Amatillo, in
the lower part of the river
Negro, the dividing line is a straight line run toward
the volcano of Cosiguina in an
astronomical direction S 86° 30' W, 36.8 kilometers
[23 miles] to the middle point of
the bay of Fonseca, equidistant from the coasts of the
two Republics on this side;
and from that point follows the division of the waters
of the bay along a line also
equidistant from the said coasts until it reaches the
middle of the distance lying
between the northern part of Cosiguina (Monypenny)
Point and the southern part of
Tigre Island.
& this dry & wet geodetic segment of hnni is easily
discernible at the tightest zoom level at encarta
where the volcano cosiguina & the rio negro are both
clearly labeled
& the amatillo point terminus can be inferred as
described
& the other terminus at the midpoint of the bay of
fonseca can be interpolated
as can the midpoint where hnni terminates between
monypenny or cosiguina point aka punta san jose &
tigre island
both of which are labeled on the other map
http://www.laprensa.com.sv/nacion/Las%20aguas%20en%20condominio.pdf
& the astonishing result is neither of the situations
we envisioned quite
but rather something actually in between them
for the seaward terminal point of maritime hnni as
described proves to lie a bit more than 4nm from the
nearest salvadoran territory
namely on isla meanguera
so it turns out that hn & ni actually did divvy up the
bay beyond their 3nm belts in 1900 yet not quite as
far as the salvadoran 3nm belt
& that the icj reaffirmed this in 1992
leaving a spot no more than about 3nm wide in any
direction as the inner tridominium triarea
thus the trijunction triarea is scarcely bigger than
it would have been if it were only a tripoint
in a manner of speaking
& i think that really does conclude our preliminary
tridominioscopy
with the outer or exclave triarea now proving to be
something on the order of 100 times larger than the
inner one
& of course i would like to see or create a good map
of all this
but i think we already have a fair & true picture of
it in our minds eye
thanx & bravos
--- aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)