Subject: Re: 15 islands dumped by usa illegally
Date: Dec 20, 2002 @ 08:54
Author: Peter Smaardijk <smaardijk@yahoo.com> ("Peter Smaardijk <smaardijk@...>" <smaardijk@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002 <orc@o...>"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Karolis B.
> <kbajoraz@y...>" <kbajoraz@y...> wrote:
> > well, the Americans ratified it legally in any case.
>
> yes i believe so
> but a treaty must be mutually & completely ratified before it can
> take any effect
>
> it cant become binding on one party before it becomes binding
> on the other

Right. It should be kept in mind that the main reason the Duma hasn't
ratified it (yet?) is the feeling that they got less than they
deserved in the Bering Sea. And now some Americans find out that they
too have an interest in not ratifying it (although the US already
did).

The problem is (again) the line in the Bering Sea, drawn in 1867 for
the sole purpose of dividing dry land. In the Bering Sea, the line
has been adopted as the maritime boundary, but after that the
problems started (loxodrome vs. great arc, and the Russians suddenly
realised that if they had insisted on the equidistance principle for
the boundary, they would have got more). To the north of Bering
Strait, the line is fuzzier still. Or should I say not really
existing.

I have the Russian text of the treaty here (from the book Russko-
Amerikanskie otnošenija i prodaža Aljaski 1834-1867, by N.N.
Bolchovitinov; the title means Russian-American Relations and the
Sale of Alaska). The western boundary of the territories ceded by
Russia, to the north of Bering Strait, is defined as follows (I have
translated it, so it will be different from the official English
text): "The western boundary of the ceded territories runs through a
point in the Bering Strait at sixty-five degrees and thirty minutes
northern latitude, where it cuts the meridian that is equidistant
from the islands of Kruzenštern or Ignaluk and Ratmanov or Nunarbuk
[these are the Diomedes - Peter S.], and runs in a straight line
unlimited to the north, until it vanishes into the Arctic Ocean."
(This is part of article 1 of the treaty)

The line running to the south-west from this point is described in
more detail in this treaty, but for the section running to the north,
the description as given above is the one we'll have to go by.

So the islands in question aren't mentioned at all. And maybe the
fact that the line is defined as running endlessly to the north is
possibly not enough for the ICJ (although it wouldn't overshoot the
pole, I hope :-), but a straight line isn't a guarantee either. It's
a bit like the ICJ ruling reported here lately in the case of the two
islands off the coast of Borneo: where does a straight line stop.

And the islands have a definite Russian presence, and this for quite
some time. I find it a bit strange that some Americans only now think
of these islands, when Russia is reluctant to ratify a maritime
boundary treaty for different reasons. I don't see how the US would
stand a chance in an eventual court case in the Hague.

I haven't seen the 1990 agreement, so I don't know what is said about
this problem there.

Peter S.