Subject: Re: Baikonur<br/>
Date: Nov 28, 2002 @ 16:35<br/>
Author: L. A. Nadybal (&quot;L. A. Nadybal&quot; &lt;lnadybal@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="8156.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8158.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic8115.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="8156.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8158.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-46343500">Wait a minute.  When a sovereign leases territory from another<br/>
sovereign, that&#39;s minimally, a sharing of sovereigny, or a devolution<br/>
of operation of sovereignty to the lessee by the lessor who then<br/>
remains only the titular sovereign.  <br/>
<br/>
Examples:  <br/>
<br/>
Hong Kong.  There was the part leased from China and the ceded part<br/>
that was British but not leased.... the world drew the international<br/>
border around both parts without differentiation.  <br/>
<br/>
Panama Canal Zone.  The US held it and operated as the treaty said it<br/>
could &quot;as though it were sovereign&quot; while excluding Panama from<br/>
exercizing any jurisdiction whatsoever.  It&#39;s true that Panama<br/>
agitated for an adjustment of the treaty and demanded it be able to<br/>
regain the upper hand.  But while the US sat firmly in the driver&#39;s<br/>
seat, the world drew an international border around the zone on all of<br/>
its maps.<br/>
<br/>
Guantanamo Bay.  No one can deny that the USA has de-facto sovereignty<br/>
there and that the US allows Cuba no say-so there whatsoever.  If the<br/>
US ever were to abandon it&#39;s position, de jure titular sovereignty<br/>
would resurface as the prime operator, and Cuba would probably<br/>
reassert it&#39;s rights.  I suppose the US could give Guantanamo to the<br/>
British so they could run a Cyprus-like operation there instead of<br/>
allowing Cuba to retake control.  Cuba wouldn&#39;t be able to do much<br/>
about that but engage in Panama-like agitation.  If you can&#39;t assert<br/>
your sovereignty against people who go beyond the terms of their<br/>
leases, then you don&#39;t have much sovereignty to exercize.  If you<br/>
can&#39;t exercize your sovereignty over something you leased out, then<br/>
effectively, sovereignty was transferred by virtue of the lease.<br/>
<br/>
Len Nadybal<br/>
Washington DC<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
  <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
  <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;Andrew T. Patton&quot; &lt;andrew@A...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 05:20:44 -0000, you wrote:<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt;Does anyone know of the Russian level of sovereignty over Baikonur <br/>
&gt; &gt;cosmodrome and the town, and do you think it could be considiered a <br/>
&gt; &gt;kind of non-sovereign exclave of Russia, similiar to the Vatican <br/>
&gt; &gt;exclaves?<br/>
&gt; &gt;<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; There is no Russian sovereignty as the land is leased.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; -Andrew<br/>
&gt; --<br/>
&gt; Andrew T. Patton (andrew@A...)<br/>
&gt; Fairfax, VA, USA<br/>
&gt; Travelogues and Photos at <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.AndrewPatton.com">http://www.AndrewPatton.com</a> </span></blockquote></div>