What about the alleged 'condominium' sovereignty over the rivers between
Germany and Luxembourg?
"Borders between states usually run down the middle of water bodies. A
special case is the German-Luxemburg border in the rivers Sauer and Our.
The bed and banks stand in a condomium of the two states. This means that
both states have sovereignty over the whole river."
Translated by Barry Smith from
http://www.mms-spiess.ch/Inhalt.htm
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, lnadybal wrote:
> Greetings, David.
>
> I think you have to be a person who accepts that the concept of shared
> sovereignty exists. I would venture to say that when states make
> agreements with each other to share occupancy, administration and
> governance over the same piece of property, that they always break
> down the attributes of sovereignty and delineate which power shall
> have what functions with respect to any one particular attribute. And
> when the treaty is finished and "working", one party of the two is
> always the underlying sovereign.
>
> Examples:
>
> Bhutan. The Duar of Bijnee, in around 1865, was under Bhutanese
> sovereignty for six months of each year, and under British sovereignty
> for the other six months.
>
> US Bases in Germany. Under the NATO status of forces treaty, the US,
> as "sending state", occupies base areas, and administers many
> functions of sovereignty on behalf of the German governent (i.e.,
> issues German license plates to base inhabitants, which the German
> government permits to be inscribed with "USA"). The US postal service
> operates on the bases, through an agency called the US Military Postal
> Services Agency, to the exclusion of Germans as users, but not to the
> exclusion of the German government's provision of mail services on the
> bases by its own postal service. US criminal law applies alongside
> German law. The bases are inside German customs territory, but the
> treaty says the US may operate without their ooperations being
> controlled by German customs. Thus, while the Germans can inspect
> incoming goods destined for US Forces, they agreed that the US can
> import whatever it needs duty free.
>
> Customs Posts (many). The US government operates immigration posts in
> other countries, the Swiss government allows German officials on
> official duty to exercize sovereign rights on the Swiss sides of
> border areas (at Bargen, near Schaffhausen, for example). In
> Basel, there is the "Badische Bahnhof", which is operated by the
> German Federal Railway. The territory is Swiss, but the Swiss allow
> the Germans to operate postal, customs and railway activities there as
> though German laws and as though German sovereignty applied there.
>
> UN HQ New York. The building in New York boasts a sign that says
> "welcome to International territory"... but it is not. The HQ
> agreement clearly states that the grounds on which the UN operates
> remains under US sovereignty, it's just that the US has relinquished
> its prerogatives to exercize its sovereign rights in certain ways in
> favor of the UN police and other organizational organs.
>
> International Zone of Tangier. This takes a book, but underlying the
> situation that existed there until the mid 1950s is the fact that
> ultimate sovereignty was Moroccan - even though at times there was
> really no Moroccan administration independent of the French.
>
> Panama Canal Zone. Here, I believe, you come as close to shared
> sovereignty as you can get, and as such, as close to "graduated" or
> "gradual" sovereignty as ever existed. The Hay-Bunau-Villa treaty
> (spelling??) provided at the key, pertinent part, that the United
> States could act in the Canal Zone "as though it were sovereign".
> In other words, Panama was sovereign but on top of it's continuing to
> act as sovereign, it let the US also act like the sovereign. What
> happended was that the US sovereign actions totally overpowered the
> Panamanian's ability to compete in the exercize of sovereign
> activities in the Zone, which ----ed the Panamanians off. Throughout
> all of it, they had the ultimate titular rights of sovereignty - if
> the US stopped acting like the sovereign, who would be left? The real
> sovereign. Looking at the Zone in these terms, sovereignty was
> ursurped in an operational context - not shared nor "graduatable".
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Len Nadybal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., David Mark <dmark@g...> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know of any current or past cases of "graded"
> sovereignty,
> > that is, of one country grading or blending gradually into another?
> >
> > That is, at this point it is 100% "country A", and over there 90%
> "country
> > A", 10% "country B". And then 70% "A", 30% "B", then 50-50, then 20%
> "A",
> > 80% "B", and finally 100% "B"? Sort of a condominium zone in which
> one
> > country gradually gives way to the other?
> >
> > If not at the national level, any examples at the subnational level?
> >
> > David
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>