Subject: RE: Black Sea maritime treaties<br/>
Date: Oct 23, 2001 @ 13:35<br/>
Author: Martin Pratt (&quot;Martin Pratt&quot; &lt;m.a.pratt@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="4199.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4220.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4195.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4215.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4217.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-816730055">Grant,<br/>
<br/>
Turkey has agreed maritime boundaries with Bulgaria (in 1997) and<br/>
Ukraine (agreements with the USSR in 1986 and 1987, confirmed by an<br/>
exchange of notes with Ukraine in 1994). The two lines do not quite<br/>
meet - there is a gap of 10&quot; of latitude and 5&quot; of longitude between<br/>
their terminal points - but both agreements contain provisions for<br/>
adjusting the final section of the boundary, so presumably they will be<br/>
joined up in due course.<br/>
<br/>
There are no maritime boundary agreements between Bulgaria-Romania or<br/>
Romania-Ukraine, so the map on the Veridian website is misleading. In<br/>
the actual Global Maritime Boundaries Database the lines are marked as<br/>
hypothetical equidistance lines, but they do converge on what appears to<br/>
be a quadripoint.<br/>
<br/>
Based on a very quick graphical plot on a paper chart, the<br/>
Bulgaria-Romania and Romania-Ukraine equidistance lines do appear to<br/>
meet quite close the (almost) agreed Bulgaria-Turkey-Ukraine tripoint.<br/>
If the two boundaries are agreed on the basis of equidistance, it would<br/>
seem to make sense from an administrative perspective for the four<br/>
states to agree that their boundaries should meet at a single point.<br/>
However, before anyone gets too excited, I should point out that there<br/>
is a known dispute between Romania and Ukraine over whether Zmeinyy<br/>
(Serpent&#39;s) Island should be allowed to influence the alignment of the<br/>
Romania-Ukraine boundary. After a long-running dispute Romania finally<br/>
recognised Ukrainian sovereignty over this small, uninhabited island in<br/>
1997, but it has subsequently argued that it should be ignored for<br/>
delimitation purposes. The area around the island has significant<br/>
hydrocarbon potential and it seems unlikely that the two sides will find<br/>
a mutually acceptable solution in the near future. Even if they do, I<br/>
suspect that it will involve a compromise which would probably preclude<br/>
the possibility of a maritime quadripoint....<br/>
<br/>
m a r t i n<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; Our favourite maritime boundaries map at maritimeboundaries.com shows<br/>
&gt; four treaty boundaries converging on a fuzzy quadripoint in the<br/>
&gt; western Black Sea - Romania-Bulgaria-Ukraine-Turkey. (The Ukraine-<br/>
&gt; Turkey line extends right across the Black Sea, becoming Russia-<br/>
&gt; Turkey and then Georgia-Turkey, so I wonder if it started life as<br/>
&gt; USSR-Turkey.)<br/>
&gt; All this treaty-brokering must have happened since 1985, because<br/>
&gt; Prescott makes no mention of it.<br/>
&gt; I&#39;ve cast around on the web looking for information to help work out<br/>
&gt; exactly what is happening at that &quot;quadripoint&quot;, but so far without<br/>
&gt; luck.<br/>
&gt; Does anyone have any information?<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; Grant </span></blockquote></div>