thanx mike
i am way over my head here as usual
& i think there might well have been a break or breaks in frgb
within the straits of dover
as you say
given only the irregular shapes of the opposing coastlines
& the equidistance principle
however
the straight coastal baselines from which territorial seas are
measured bypass the irregularities of the coasts themselves
much as some of our recent oktx rationalizations bypassed the
irregularities of the right bank of the red river
except that in the present case the shortcuts are legally specified
rather than just a subjective invention
& then on top of this first simplification
the outer limits of the territorial seas tend to be further
streamlined
since they dont just follow & mimic the straight baselines by
means of a simple offset at a fixed distance
as one might suppose
but they are actually projected in arcs of fixed radius from every
possible cape &or islet etc
so that they tend to form complex french curves rather than
simply reiterating the zigzags of the coastal baselines
this 2stage rationalization tends to average & soften & round
everything off twice
making the kind of disjunction you envision seem all the more
unlikely to occur at any single short narrowing to under 24nm
such as apparently obtains at dover straits
but i think you will find a perfect example of what you are talking
about in the cadk territorial sea boundary that runs intermittently
between greenland & ellesmere island canada
from smith bay to lincoln sea
there
proceeding north
you enter smith sound
a first narrows of under 24nm
then you emerge into kane basin
which is much wider than 24nm
& thus includes a pocket of everyones water
then you enter kennedy channel
a second narrows of under 24nm
next you emerge into hall basin
which is again much wider than 24nm
& thus includes another spot of everyones water
& then you enter robeson channel
a third narrows of under 24nm
before finally emerging into the lincoln sea & arctic ocean
so i believe you have there 3 disconnected sectors of the cadk
territorial sea boundary
each of them terminating in 2 tripoints with everyones water
just as you describe below
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> Nice and thanks for the info. Given the irregular
> shape of shorelines, there might even be more than one
> FRGB border segment. For instance - the distance
> between the coastal baseline might be 23 nm at the
> chunnel area; then moving west it might be 24.1 nm,
> then further west and back to 23.9 nm, etc, even if
> for short distances. I suppose this could cause many
> tripoints of France, G.Britain, and everyone's water.
> Too bad they are not marked.
>
> --- acroorca2002 <orc@o...> wrote:
> > by international law the territorial waters of
> > countries may extend
> > no farther than 12nm seaward from their coastal
> > baselines
> > which are the straight lines connecting the most
> > seaward
> > projections of their coasts &or offshore islands
> >
> > but there are many exceptional cases involving
> > underclaims
> > such as of 3nm or 6nm or 9nm etc
> > depending on various factors
> > like the desire of greece not to provoke turkey
> > etc etc
> > & there are a few exceptional cases of overclaims
> > like canada & russia claiming all the way to the
> > north pole
> >
> > but normally only normal claims & underclaims are
> > generally
> > recognized
> >
> > also there are cases of negotiated & adjudicated
> > asymmetries
> >
> > but the general rule & the default reality is as you
> > say 12nm
> >
> > in the case of the straits of dover
> > as you also anticipate
> > there must be a short reach of waters extending
> > across the
> > chunnel where the distance between the french &
> > british coastal
> > baselines is less than 24nm apart
> > & this would produce a real frgb territorial waters
> > boundary line
> > based on equidistance if nothing else
> > without there being any intervening everyones waters
> >
> > not only in that specific location but for several
> > miles in both
> > directions along the narrowest passage
> >
> > & it is presumably just such a line that is marked
> > within the
> > chunnel
> >
> > & since it is marked
> > it must first have been delimited
> > deliberately & exactly
> > as well as explicitly agreed to
> >
> > so i would expect a treaty to this effect could be
> > found
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> > Kaufman
> > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > Ok, I have a general quetion. How far do
> > territorial
> > > waters extend? From my memory it was 12, wasn't
> > it?
> > > But I don't remember and couldn't find it in the
> > > archives (I know I've seen it many times but
> > couldn't
> > > find it) so that is why I ask.
> > >
> > > If this is the case, and the underwater portion of
> > the
> > > Chunnel is 23 miles long, then I guess it could
> > only
> > > have been 1 mile longer before you had [everyone's
> > > land]/FR and [ev. land]/GB borders. But do you
> > think
> > > they even knew about this? Can we be certain the
> > FRGB
> > > is really on the border - is there a treay?
> > >
> > > -Mike K.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- acroorca2002 <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper
> > > > Nielsen"
> > > > <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.kittyempire.org/Detroit0300/tunnelflags.jpg
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.windsorpubliclibrary.com/images/Museum/riversedge
> > > > .jpg
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.tecsoc.org/pubs/history/pics/hollandtunnel.jpg
> > > >
> > http://www.youmustknow.com/graphics/pics/oct82.jpg
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.actorsplayhouse.org/readingoctober2002.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
__________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> > > http://search.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com