Michael:

> i salute your equidistancing everything out
> as it is after all the default reality anyway
> & we can always correct if anything other than equidistance ever

happens

I think we are in a position to at least sketch out the *topology* of
the situation, without being able to nail down the exact position of
many EEZ tripoints. In a vague intuitive sort of way I can imagine
the net of maritime borders flexing and stretching away from precise
equidistance as treaties are put into place, but for negotiations to
*begin* the territories concerned must have some zone where their
maritime interests approach each other - so finding the equidistance
borders and tripoints at least sketches out the map. That grid may
well distort, but tripoints are probably unlikely to disappear. Not
impossible, though - there's at least one near miss I know of. The
International Court of Justice laid down a maritime border between
Tunisia and Libya which is shifted westwards from the equidistance
line. That converts the Tunisian equidistance border with Malta into
just a tiny sliver wedged between its ICJ-decreed border with Libya
and its agreed maritime boundary with Italy. (It also creates an area
on the Libyan side of the ICJ boundary which is potentially claimable
by Italy on an equidistance basis. I don't know if any progress has
been made on this since Prescott wrote about it - it would be a
detached fragment of Italian sea wedged between Malta, Tunisia and
Libya.)

Grant