Subject: Re: one last itch to scratch re atchde<br/>
Date: Jul 27, 2001 @ 21:55<br/>
Author: Peter Smaardijk (&quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="3341.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="3350.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic3334.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="3342.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="3344.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1589095382">I am willing to consider any possibility, but whether Gideon&#39;s is the <br/>
most likely one I dare to doubt. I can&#39;t find any treaty anywhere on <br/>
the web, Gideon doesn&#39;t seem to mention one (I haven&#39;t seen the book, <br/>
so I may be wrong here), mentions the tripoint at his entries on <br/>
Germany and Switzerland but not at the one on Austria, and what I <br/>
find on the web is not really unambiguous (to use that word again). <br/>
Take this, for example:<br/>
<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.virtual-institute.de/en/Rspr94/ersp94_5.cfm">http://www.virtual-institute.de/en/Rspr94/ersp94_5.cfm</a><br/>
<br/>
The part concerned is no. 12.<br/>
<br/>
This concerns a judgement of a Financial court in Baden-Wuerttemberg, <br/>
where it is said that Germany considers the upper part of the lake to <br/>
be divided following the partition principle, and not by the <br/>
condominium principle, just because the other parts of the lake <br/>
(where Austria is not a party), and other lakes on boundaries, are <br/>
also divided by this principle. But for these other parts, treaties <br/>
with Switzerland are mentioned. No treaty for the upper part of the <br/>
lake (which is the subject here) is mentioned at all, and the ruling <br/>
is that the Financial Department of the Land was right in _assuming_ <br/>
the same principles for the upper lake.<br/>
<br/>
I think that for a tripoint you need a trilateral agreement. And I <br/>
have yet to see such an agreement (to which Austria is a party).<br/>
<br/>
But I&#39;m not ruling out such an agreement has been reached (recently). <br/>
I would like to see that agreement.<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.<br/>
<br/>
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;Michael Donner&quot; &lt;barbaria_longa@h...&gt; <br/>
wrote:<br/>
<br/>
also please consider the likeliest probability<br/>
<br/>
which is that gideon in 1997 must have been aware of trilateral <br/>
documentation for this precise atchde position or wouldnt have <br/>
reported it as such<br/>
<br/>
data of which our other informants may not have been aware when these <br/>
conflicting or merely outdated facts were reported by or thru them<br/>
<br/>
whenever that originally was<br/>
<br/>
for we dont have the original date of this assertion by barry smith <br/>
nor of his sources etc<br/>
<br/>
m</div>