Still, what remains here is the fact that the turning point is on the
coastline (at low tide) of an islet. Why would such a point have been
chosen, and not, say, the centre of the islet or the highest point? In
other words, the way it is sometimes done in Scandinavia. They could
have done that, if the (maritime) boundary has no real meaning when it
runs across land. It wouldn't have made any difference. Maybe the idea
that some day this boundary running across dry land might become a
source of doubt (like here at BP) was playing in the heads of the
people who thought this up after all. When you take the central or
highest point of an island, there is much more land to be in doubt over
than there is in the actual situation.

Or maybe, being a point of a maritime boundary, it should be wet by
definition. And now it's wet, albeit only just.

Attached a little scheme of how I think the situation is at both points
we're talking about. Please tell me if I interpreted your conclusions
wrong.

Peter S.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com