thanx martin
it makes sense
that long eez tube is after all barely enclaved in the canadian eez
isnt is
also doug
as you are actively seeking the right map from the canadian govt
i hope you have noted in the info below
that you probably cant do better than the mentioned
canadian chart number 4490
this with the precisely plotted points
is probably the most definitive available answer to your question
at mean sea level anyway
vis tecum
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Pratt <m.a.pratt@d...>"
<m.a.pratt@d...> wrote:
> 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)
> > > ==================================