Subject: Re: Passing foreign territory
Date: May 10, 2001 @ 07:42
Author: Peter Smaardijk ("Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Agreements over roads/rail are different to at sea, because at seait is
> international law that dictates the litoral states have to allowpassage.
> Any two countries can come up with an agreement regarding accessand roads
> etc between themselves, which is purely bilateral. There wereseveral roads
> and rilas cut by the formaiton of Eatst Pakistan, and neithercountry has
> budged on the 'infringement to nationalintegrity/sovereignty/security' that
> allowing passage would supposedly entail. Look at the fuss over Tinbigha
> where transit was a right under interational law. People werekilled
> protesting over that one.if that)
> There was even a dispute over a small section (a few hundred metres
> of a railline in Eastern East Pakistan, that cut through a tinypeninsula of
> Tripura. India caused trouble over this, so in the end it wasagreed that
> India give up its land on the western side of the rial line, andthe rial
> bed itself to 10m east of the line. A total of 75 acres. Yet thisis still
> trotted out in parliament in India as an unreciprocated appeasementby
> nationalist hardliners.Kurigram
>
> The rail line from Calcutta to Assam used to go through what is now
> Bangladesh to cooch Behar state, then head east cutting across the
> slaient (the easternmost of the three prongs of Bangladesh in thenorth) and
> into Assam. this was cut at partition, and there have been frequentcalls
> for the reinstatement of transit across the piece cutting throughKurigram,
> under 8.5miles (14km). There are no branches, and the transit wouldbe
> beneficial to India, and surely to Bangladesh, but the bit inKurigram
> remained abandoned, unitl pulled up by Bangladesh some years ago.country splits
>
> So there is no compulsion to allow terrestrial access. When a
> along old administrative, or other, lines, and some communicationroutes are
> left ipartially on one side but of use only to the other, no doubtsome
> agreement is usually reached, but it depends on the countries andtheir
> relations. Inb Europe, it works, elsewhere it doesn't. There is noAngle
> necessity for Canada to allow terrestrial transit to Pt Roberts or
> INlet, they only do because it is of benefit to them, if notdirectly, then
> out of wider diplomatic/friendly neighbourliness.That seems reason enough for me, though. Unless you are a hot-headed
> BWIt looks like this is a typical matter that can be regulated as part
>