Subject: Re: one last itch to scratch re atchde<br/>
Date: Dec 09, 2001 @ 14:09<br/>
Author: ps1966nl (&quot;ps1966nl&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="5002.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next&emsp;[<a href="topic3334.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="5023.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="5025.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1369233391">acroorca2002 wrote:<br/>
(...) since the condo option is effectively blocked by the stated <br/>
preference of at least one of the other parties for the default <br/>
principle of equidistance then there exists in fact a much stronger <br/>
presumption of that default occurring here than might otherwise be <br/>
expected  <br/>
<br/>
Of course, but just as it is true that Austria sees its desire to <br/>
make the lake a condominium blocked by an unwilling Switzerland and a <br/>
less that clear (in this matter) Germany, it is Switzerland that is <br/>
being blocked from partitioning the lake by the unwillingness of <br/>
Austria to fix an atch border in the lake. And the tripoint is bound <br/>
to be on that line. It may well be that Austria is fighting an up <br/>
hill battle, but Switzerland isn&#39;t there yet either, and even <br/>
boundaries that are formed by applying the simplest equidistant <br/>
principle have to be agreed upon by the parties concerned, if only by <br/>
not objecting to it. I think that Austria does object.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; as gideon apparently also saw & indicated by his fairly exactly <br/>
 </span></blockquote>equidistant placement of the putative tripoint <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; & as many mapmakers have apparently also sensibly concluded in the <br/>
 </span></blockquote>absence of anything more definitive<br/>
<br/>
Yes, but many mapmakers very often suffer from a Pavlov-like reflex <br/>
in drawing boundaries wherever it serves them to make a map more <br/>
clear (or what they think is clear). By drawing boundaries in the <br/>
water, they connect Bornholm to Denmark. They could even connect the <br/>
Faeroer Islands to Denmark, if they wanted to.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; since we are pretty sure there is no treaty i would rather say it <br/>
 </span></blockquote>looks like a clear case of a perfectly stalemated tripoint at present <br/>
& in the absence of any further express preference from any party it <br/>
looks unlikely ever to stray very far from where gideon has recorded <br/>
or envisioned it in the following passage<br/>
<br/>
As for a &quot;de facto&quot; tripoint, I agree.<br/>
<br/>
But legally, I still think it takes, in this case, three to tango.<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.</div>