On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:35:51 -0000, you wrote:

>Wait a minute. When a sovereign leases territory from another
>sovereign, that's minimally, a sharing of sovereigny, or a devolution
>of operation of sovereignty to the lessee by the lessor who then
>remains only the titular sovereign.
>

If you define sovereignty as control over the leased land, you would
be correct but I think that sovereignty implies a bit more than
control. While the lease has control over the land, they can be
limited in what they do on the leased land and who they can transfer
control to or sublet.

>Examples:

>Hong Kong. There was the part leased from China and the ceded part
>that was British but not leased.... the world drew the international
>border around both parts without differentiation.

Was that really an international border or an administrative line.
Most map makers do not make the distinction. See the borders of
Oman/UAE as an example.

>
>
>Guantanamo Bay. No one can deny that the USA has de-facto sovereignty
>there and that the US allows Cuba no say-so there whatsoever. If the
>US ever were to abandon it's position, de jure titular sovereignty
>would resurface as the prime operator, and Cuba would probably
>reassert it's rights. I suppose the US could give Guantanamo to the
>British so they could run a Cyprus-like operation there instead of
>allowing Cuba to retake control. Cuba wouldn't be able to do much
>about that but engage in Panama-like agitation. If you can't assert
>your sovereignty against people who go beyond the terms of their
>leases, then you don't have much sovereignty to exercize. If you
>can't exercize your sovereignty over something you leased out, then
>effectively, sovereignty was transferred by virtue of the lease.

You and the US Courts would be in disagreement here. Several lawsuits
have been made with regards to the prisoners from Afghanistan. The US
Courts have repeatedly said that they do not have jurisdictions as
Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba not the US.

The fact that Cuba has done nothing is only an indication that the
lease was made under duress many years ago. If I recall correctly, the
US lease indicates that control would revert to Cuba if the US leaves.
It does not indicate any other party could take over or sublease.

--
Andrew T. Patton (andrew@...)
Fairfax, VA, USA
Travelogues and Photos at http://www.AndrewPatton.com