The Ile de la Conference being an enclaved condominium is really an
assumption I made on the basis of the fact the boundary in the
Bidasoa river is defined as being the thalweg of the main course of
the river (and therefore no island can possibly be in the way). But
it is an assumption, and I don't know which branch of the Bidasoa at
the island was the main one at the time of the signing of the treaty.
Nowadays, it is definitely the northern branch. But I don't think the
border changes every time the main branch changes from the south to
the north or v.v. But I like to stress here that I didn't see
everything in writing yet, and it might even be the case that at the
location of the island, the thalweg principle is not valid anymore
(although I think this is not a very likely possibility). Anyway, the
Bidasoa is a special river, because, although it is divided between
France and Spain, there are special regulations regarding the river
between Chapitelacoarria and the Baie du Figuier, that give it some
condominial treats with regards to fishing and navigation.
Or, to put it differently: the island is a boundary symbol, sitting
right on the boundary, being the river. The river is a very visible
boundary. Of course, it is a very broad line, and in reality also
divided by a line. But this line is not visible, and therefore of no
use for symbolical purposes. Unless you are going to put buoys in the
middle of the river. But that would really be a case of overkill. It
was all about being good neighbours. Good neighbours don't need this,
especially since the regime on the Bidasoa as a whole is already well
described.
Peter S.
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
> exactly peter
> but here is the part of your or probably rather descheemaekers
symbolism
> i still dont get
>
> i understand that the condo island functions as a symbolic boundary
monument
> no problem
> that is as a monument to & witness of the esfr boundary
>
> but since the island isnt situated upon the boundary line itself
> the way real boundary islets are
> say in scandinavia
> but is rather an enclave & without condo tripoints
> it seems to me not a hyper monument at all but rather a hypo
monument
>
> & i am left wondering how something that is physically off line &
off point
> can adequately symbolize or epitomize or in any other real way
recapitulate
> what is on line & on point
>
> i mean arent symbols supposed to be true representations of truths
> rather than muffed representations of misses
>
> for otherwise what is the point
>
> m
>
> >
> >That is exactly what they are. See messages 1936, 1948 (the link to
> >Statens Kartverk) and 1952.
> >
> >The symbolism of good neighbourhood Peter H. mentions is another
sign
> >we are not dealing with a boundary drawn without knowing what is in
> >the way. It is interesting to read in the Descheemaeker article
that
> >at first, the Scandinavian solution was considered for the Ile de
la
> >Conference, actually dividing the island between Spain and France,
> >but that in the end the condominium solution was chosen, because
this
> >was seen to be a continuation of the de facto situation, where the
> >island was used for international conferences and similar meetings
> >for which you need ground that is more or less 'neutral'.
> >
> >So the Ile de la Conference can be considered a very big boundary
> >marker, in function similar to the St. Martins Stone (also a place
> >where international treaties are concluded or renewed).
> >
> >A real symbol not only of the dividing nature of boundaries, but
also
> >of being good neighbours.
> >
> >And another thing: "conflicts over ownership make no sense", like
> >Peter H. said, says a lot about the Scandinavians themselves; more
> >often you hear retorics about "not one inch of the holy ground of
our
> >fathers will be yielded" in the rest of the world!
> >
> >Peter S.
> >
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., David Mark <dmark@g...> wrote:
> >> Are the divided islands in Scandanavia TURNING POINTS in the
> >boundaries?
> >> With the precise turning point at the peak or center of the
> >island? If
> >> so, Peter's boundary marker theory seems obviously correct.
> >>
> >> But if the boundary is a straight line cutting the island, it
can be
> >> hardly anything other than a co-incidence.
> >>
> >> Islands cut by boundaries can be expected anywhere that a fiat
> >boundary,
> >> drawn on a map without knowing the details on the ground,
crosses a
> >region
> >> that contains islands. Lakes with islands are relatively rare on
a
> >global
> >> scale, most of them are in glaciated areas: Scandanavia and
Canada
> >and the
> >> former Soviet Union. Fiat boundaries should divide islands by
chance
> >> mainly in those regions.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Peter Hering wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Arif,
> >> > concerning divided islands in Scandinavia,
> >> > this is my guess:
> >> > 1- they act as boundary markers - easy to
> >> > see, instead of buoys...
> >> > 2- since most of Scandinavian border regions
> >> > are inhabited by only very few people,
> >> > conflicts over ownership make no sense...
> >> > 3- they symbolize good neighbourhood!
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, Jesper and I are planning a short
> >> > 2 day expedition to the southern part of the
> >> > SeNo border and plant BoundaryPoint's flag
> >> > on these islands - wanna come...?!?
> >> > Regards - good weekend
> >> > Peter H.
> >> >
> >> > -------Original Message-------
> >> >
> >> > From: Arif Samad
> >> > Date: Friday, April 27, 2001 23:49:57
> >> > To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Indian mess - French to blame?
> >> >
> >> > Brendan, Thank you for the research. I guess
> >> > Goretty disappeared as an enclave at some time. I
> >> > have not been able to find the 1991 census handbook,
> >> > so you are definitely more current.
> >> > I should have rephrased my question on divided
> >> > islands. I noticed there are other islands that are
> >> > divided, but the big islands mentioned were divided
> >> > with full knowledge of colonial consequences. They
> >> > are big islands that had to be divided as different
> >> > groups were in control of parts before the islands
> >> > were eventually divided and the division couldn't be
> >> > circumvented. Only US-Canada and Scandinavian borders
> >> > seem to divide tiny islands that could easily be
> >> > circumnavigated by the boundary lines. I wonder why
> >> > that is. Mike's explanation makes a lot of sense
> >> > though. Then again, all of them could just be
> >> > mistakes.
> >> > Brendan, don't you have the points for Baarle?
> >> > Maybe you could create excel charts of the small
> >> > enclaves in Baarle like ones done for Cyprus.
> >> > Arif
> >> >
> >> > __________________________________________________
> >> > Do You Yahoo!?
> >> > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> >> > <http://auctions.yahoo.com/> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1338145.2931364.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=
1700126166:
> >N/A=567136/R=2/*http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?
ydomains+merchant-ad:dmad/M
>
>=176325.1338145.2931364.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=567136/
R=3/9884693
> >92+http://domains.yahoo.com>
>
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1338145.2931364.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=
1700126166:
> >N/A=567136/R=4/*http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?
ydomains+merchant-ad:dmad/M
>
>=176325.1338145.2931364.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=567136/
R=5/9884693
> >92+http://domains.yahoo.com>www. Your use of Yahoo!
Groups is
> >subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms of
> >Service.