Subject: RE: Black Sea maritime treaties<br/>
Date: Oct 24, 2001 @ 09:45<br/>
Author: Martin Pratt (&quot;Martin Pratt&quot; &lt;m.a.pratt@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="4226.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic4195.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4230.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4232.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1432582264">The &#39;odd little box&#39; around Seranilla Bank on Veridian&#39;s map defines a<br/>
&quot;Joint Regime Area&quot; established in a 1993 agreement between Colombia and<br/>
Jamaica. Although this area was created in the context of a maritime<br/>
boundary delimitation, I think Veridian are wrong (or at least<br/>
inconsistent) to show its limits as agreed maritime boundaries. Like<br/>
most joint zones, it is designed to be temporary in nature and exists<br/>
&quot;pending the determination of the jurisdictional limits of each party in<br/>
the area&quot;. My guess is that Jamaica was reluctant to agree to a<br/>
full-blown boundary in this area because Nicaragua disputes Colombian<br/>
sovereignty over Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo. My understanding is that<br/>
the USA gave up its claims in the area in the 1970s.<br/>
<br/>
m a r t i n<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; &gt; the map on the Veridian website is misleading.<br/>
&gt; This is the second time I&#39;ve found negotiated boundaries marked on<br/>
&gt; that map where no treaty seems to exist. There&#39;s an odd little box in<br/>
&gt; the Caribbean, I think surrounding Seranilla Banks in the north of<br/>
&gt; Colombia&#39;s maritime claim. The area is also claimed by the USA, and a<br/>
&gt; US government website dated later than 1998 (the date on the<br/>
&gt; maritimeboundaries map) states that no agreement has been reached.<br/>
&gt; But the map shows the area completely bounded by multilateral<br/>
&gt; agreements. </span></blockquote></div>