¡Bravisisimo! You've reached as a far as text will go on this matter.
Only a map would do better.
I agree completely with your analysis.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first known map of hnnisv tridominium & its
trilines & tripoint
> 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)
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>