I assume that the 'enclave' in question is SP&M as a whole, although
it's certainly not clear from the context. It's a term introduced by
the commentator in International Maritime Boundaries, not the
technical expert to the Court (whose report I have now viewed; it
doesn't shed any further light on our question).
m a r t i n
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002 <orc@o...>"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> martin
> can you or anyone explain what is meant by
> the enclave
> in the following unexpurgated text of message 8898
> which however i have interrupted below just to point out the
passage
> in question
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Pratt"
<m.a.pratt@d...>
> wrote:
> > Below are some extracts from the analysis of the Canada-France
> maritime
> > boundary in the American Society of International Law's
> authoritative
> > series "International Maritime Boundaries". As far as the long-
> running
> > boundarypoint discussion on this boundary is concerned, the key
> comment
> > is at the end of the first paragraph: "Turning points 4 and 5
are
> fixed
> > on the low-water marks of Canadian islets in the Little Green
Island
> > group, a rather unusual feature for a maritime boundary. These
> islets
> > are the westernmost of the Canadian offshore features." This
> suggests to
> > me that while there is land territory immediately on one side of
the
> > boundary, there is no actual land boundary....
> >
> > When I get an opportunity, I will have a look through Peter
> Beazley's
> > technical report (published in Vol. 31 of International Legal
> Materials)
> > and see if he has any comments on relationship between the
boundary
> and
> > the Little Green Island group.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > m a r t i n
> >
> >
> > EXTRACTS FROM INTERNATIONAL MARITIME BOUNDARIES
> >
> > There are quite a number of islets, rocks, drying rocks, banks,
and
> > shoals in the boundary area. Most of the offshore features used
as
> > basepoints for measuring the boundary are rocks, although
turning
> points
> > 1, 2, and 3 are, on their west, measured from a French islet,
> L'Enfant
> > Perdu. In general, when a boundary turning point is determined
on
> the
> > basis of equidistance from the respective basepoints, that
basepoint
> > closest to the boundary on the French side has been chosen,
while
> the
> > nearest Canadian basepoints have been ignored. An exception are
the
> > Outer Miquelon Rocks, about 4 n.m. west of turning point 7,
which
> were
> > ignored in determining the point's location. Turning points 4
and 5
> are
> > fixed on the low-water marks of Canadian islets in the Little
Green
> > Island group, a rather unusual feature for a maritime boundary.
> These
> > islets are the westernmost of the Canadian offshore features.
> >
> > Banks and shoals were ignored as basepoints in the delimitation.
> Since
> > the drying rocks on both sides of the line are located within the
> > respective territorial seas, they could, legally, generate their
own
> > territorial waters, and thus would qualify as potential
basepoints
> for
> > determining the boundary. No islets were ignored in the
delimitation
> > except for Canada's Green Island, a part of the group of islets
near
> > Points 4 and 5, which was disregarded because it would have
> exercised a
> > disproportionate effect on the boundary.
> >
> > *****
> >
> > To deal with technical difficulties, as mentioned at the outset,
the
> > Court of Arbitration appointed as its expert Commander Peter
> Beazley of
> > the United Kingdom. In his Technical Report to the Court,
Commander
> > Beazley explained that all computations were made on the
ellipsoid
> using
> > North American Datum (1983), the associated ellipsoid being that
of
> the
> > Geodetic Reference System (1980). The International Nautical
Mile
> of
> > 1852 meters was used. Positions of relevant basepoints were
taken
> by
> > the expert from Canadian charts, with corrections supplied by the
> > Canadian Hydrographic Service, and all coordinates were
expressed
> to 0.1
> > arc seconds. 71 The line of delimitation was illustrated on the
> > largest-scale chart of the area available, Canadian Chart No.
4490.
> >
> > The first technical problem noted by Commander Beazley in his
> report to
> > the court was that the coordinates listed in the Agreement
between
> > Canada and France of 27 March 1972 were expressed only to the
> nearest
> > arc second. While the Canadian Memorial had applied datum
> corrections,
> > the French pleadings had not assigned coordinates to either
point 1
> or
> > point 9, the terminal points of the agreed delimitation (in the
> channel
> > between Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon) and
consequently
> the
> > starting points for the delimitation by the Court of Arbitration.
> > Further, point 1 as described in the 1972 Agreement and
corrected
> for
> > datum change, did not lie exactly on a 12 n.m. arc centered on
> L'Enfant
> > Perdu. The expert therefore assumed that, had the coordinates
been
> > given to the nearest 0.1 arc second back in 1972, they would
have
> been
> > slightly different.
>
> ok here it comes
> the enclave
> in the sentence just below
>
> > With respect to the enclave, as regards basepoints on St. Pierre
and
> > Miquelon, while the French Memorial listed the coordinates of an
> > equidistant line, the controlling basepoints were only named and
> their
> > coordinates not given. The Canadian Counter Memorial did give
> > coordinates for the basepoints used by Canada for the French
> islands,
> > but a comparison with the French equidistant coordinates showed
> that the
> > two parties could not be using identical points. Commander
Beazley
> > observed that "[t]his is only to be expected from the scales of
the
> > charts even if the features used were the same." Therefore, he
> > determined his own coordinates of the basepoints for the French
> islands,
> > although the coordinates differed only slightly from those given
by
> > Canada.
> >
> > Other problems for Commander Beazley arose in the context of
> determining
> > the corridor, which, it will be recalled was to extend "to a
> distance of
> > 1988 nautical miles from a 12 nautical miles limit measured from
the
> > baselines" on St. Pierre and Miquelon. The western and eastern
> limits
> > of this projection were determined by the extremities of the
French
> > islands, and the expert had to determine the distance between the
> > meridians passing through these points at their mean latitude.
> Also,
> > the limits described by the court for the lateral boundaries of
the
> > corridor were actually "small circles" and were neither geodetic
> lines
> > nor rhumb lines. A geodetic line was a closer approximation, but
> > because positions were given to the nearest 0.1 arc, it was
> necessary
> > for the expert to determine two intermediate points along each
> limit in
> > order to reduce the divergence of the geodesics from the small
> circles.
> >
> > ==================================
> > Martin Pratt
> > Director of Research
> > International Boundaries Research Unit
> > Department of Geography
> > University of Durham
> > South Road
> > Durham DH1 3LE
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > +44 (0)191 374 7704 (direct line)
> > +44 (0)191 374 7702 (fax)
> > m.a.pratt@d... (email)
> > http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk (World Wide Web)
> > ==================================