Subject: Fw: [BoundaryPoint] Re: St Pierre et Miquelon<br/>
Date: Dec 06, 2002 @ 11:30<br/>
Author: Peter Smaardijk (&quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="8276.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8280.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic8273.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="8278.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="8280.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-748696015">--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@o...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; i dont think we have a good enough map yet to get a reliable <br/>
&gt; answer by just taking the turning point data & drawing the lines<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; but i did at least review the data once again & finally noticed <br/>
 </span></blockquote>that <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; the cafr line touches not just one but 2 of these little green <br/>
 </span></blockquote>islets<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; yikes<br/>
&gt; check it out<br/>
&gt; both points 4 & 5 make separate landfalls on different islets<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; one is on the enfant perdu as shown on your first attachment<br/>
&gt; & the other is the unnamed southwesternmost islet<br/>
&gt; possibly also shown there but not clearly identifiable as such<br/>
&gt;  <br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>It is a bit confusing that in the 1972 (not 1974, as I wrote earlier <br/>
on) text there are two &quot;lost children&quot;: the one with the article <br/>
which belongs to France, and the one without the article belonging to <br/>
Canada. Turning point 4 is on the low water line of the Canadian <br/>
island.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; but again the angles of the turns & the shapes & positions of the <br/>
&gt; islets are such that it is almost inconceivable for there not to be <br/>
&gt; at least a tiny land boundary on at least one if not both of these <br/>
&gt; islets<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>Yes, I think I agree. I was hesitant to say so, though, because one <br/>
island (the Canadian Enfant Perdu), having turning point 4 on its low <br/>
water line, is designated as being Canadian without any further <br/>
clarification. If Enfant Perdu is, however, cut by one or two <br/>
boundary lines, it wouldn&#39;t be Canadian in its entirety. A bit sloppy <br/>
for a treaty text, in my humble opinion. I wonder whether there were <br/>
maps attached to this treaty that cancel this out (perhaps this <br/>
Canadian chart that is mentioned).<br/>
<br/>
It is highly improbable that any points are marked. We&#39;ll just have <br/>
to wait until &quot;something&quot; happens on the &quot;disputed&quot; territories and <br/>
see which authorities will react... :-)<br/>
<br/>
Something else: the boundary is supposed to be between &quot;the <br/>
territorial waters of Canada and the zones submitted to the fishery <br/>
jurisdiction of France&quot;. Why is there no talk of territorial waters <br/>
of France here? Is this because in 1972 France hadn&#39;t defined its <br/>
terr. waters around Saint Pierre & Miquelon yet? Or is there another <br/>
reason?<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.</div>