Subject: Re: Marked maritime boundaries Was: FRGB<br/>
Date: May 05, 2003 @ 19:30<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="9936.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="9939.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic9904.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="9937.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="9939.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1567282161">--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Jesper Nielsen&quot; <br/>
&lt;jesniel@i...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; Map of border and bridge. Buoys apparenly numbered.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; By why EEZ?<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>yes exactly <br/>
why indeed<br/>
because this too is a territorial sea boundary <br/>
& not an eez boundary properly so called<br/>
assuming the bridge is way less than 24nm<br/>
which i do<br/>
<br/>
perhaps it is not wrong to say it this way tho<br/>
if you consider all of the first 200nm as eez<br/>
including the first 12nm of territorial sea within that<br/>
<br/>
i mean there may be a case that can be made<br/>
but i agree it seems odd to call it only eez when it is fully <br/>
sovereign territory</div>