When pointing out that earlier comments on the Mr. Oduntan's question 
seemed not to be addressing it, I added that I would not myself be able to 
answer the actual question he asked for professional reasons.  Prof. 
Jeffress' comment below does not actually answer the question either, 
though it makes some interesting observations.  So I need not feel 
professionally inhibited.

As a mere international lawyer, I would not venture to question purely 
geographic opinions expressed by professional geographers.  But I can and 
do challenge his statement that "The legal precedence is that natural 
boundaries have priority over
artificial boundaries; and monuments on the ground have priority over
measurements or coordinates (the derivative of measurements.)".

The first part of this statement is simply untrue.  There is no 
international legal doctrine which says that natural boundaries take 
precedence over artificial ones.  It all depends on what the parties or 
their predecessors in title agreed; and failing agreement there are a 
number of factors which can be taken into account, especially the exercise 
of State authority in its various forms.  There is simply no legal priority 
for one type of boundary over another.  (The original question concerned 
international law: I express no view about whether the law of Texas or some 
other domestic legal system has such a rule.)

The second part of the statement is at best an over-simplification.   The 
boundary is what the States concerned (including their predecessors) or a 
third-party decision-maker decided the boundary shall be, and there is no 
automatic presumption that the marker prevails over e.g. the terms of a 
treaty or a judgment laying down limits, including any measurements or 
coordinates specified there.  When it comes to demarcation on the ground, 
demarcators are often  given latitude (which can vary in degree) to correct 
errors or tidy things up (often on a reciprocal basis).  In that limited 
sense it could be said that the monument (actually, the agreement on the 
location of the monument) could be said to take precedence.  It can also 
happen that, if the agreed or previously awarded boundary is unclear but 
there has been significant practice which has respected the line marked out 
by the monuments, that will prevail.  Again, it may be that the instruments 
authorizing the demarcation or the protocols of erection of monuments make 
it clear which is to prevail. But it is not because there is a general 
legal rule that monuments prevail over measurements or coordinates.  In 
short, whether, when, how and why a monument trumps coordinates or 
measurements is not something which can be encapsulated in a ten-word maxim.

One last, not strictly legal, point.   Prof. Jefress recommends that 
longitudes and latitudes be specified to within one-thousandth of a second 
of arc, which he says is approx. 3 centimetres on the ground (in most 
inhabited areas).  No doubt, the highest degree of precision is always 
something for which scientists should aim. But I had understood (though 
here I claim no expertise) that the precision of the coordinates can be 
affected by the model of the earth used (different parties may choose 
different models) and other geodetic factors - there not yet being an 
definitive, universally accepted standard or model. In any case, even in 
these days when important financial or political interests can turn on the 
"exact" location of a boundary, I would be very surprised if Governments 
either today or in the reasonably foreseeable future would be bothered 
about such a high degree of precision (a tolerance of 3cm).  Generally, 
they seem to think a tolerance of metres or even tens of metres is easily 
good enough.

Best,

Maurice Mendelson

At 19:58 19/08/04, Gary Jeffress wrote:
>Dear Gbenga Oduntan and Colleagues,
>
>The International court does not have a good record of using maps and
>coordinates to define international boundaries. The major fault being the
>exclusion of a standard geodetic datum to define the map and coordinate
>system.
>
>Here is my brief summary of how boundaries should be defined so as not to be
>ambiguous and are easily re-locatable:
>
>There are two types of boundaries:
>
>1) Natural ­ Such as a coastline, center of a river, highest peaks of a
>mountain range, etc. These boundaries are unambiguous and can even move as
>long as the movement is gradual, natural, and imperceptible. Coastal land
>reclamation may influence an offshore international boundary (say along a
>narrow straight, e.g. Singapore and Malaysia,) when this occurs it is best
>that the adjoining countries negotiate the boundary location before
>construction begins and accurately position boundary points by determining
>Latitude and Longitude to a precision of one thousandth of a second of arc
>by modern geodetic measurements and computations (nowadays by precise GPS or
>similar satellite observations) and referenced to a standard geodetic system
>such as the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84) or International
>Terrestrial Reference Frame for a given year (e.g. ITRF2000, this system is
>usually updated annually due to the four-dimensional nature of precise
>geodetic datums.)
>
>2) Artificial ­ An artificial line over the surface of the earth created by
>humans to delineate sovereignty between countries. These lines are best
>located by agreement between the adjoining countries and located by
>artificial monuments or markers with official representation from each
>country. These monuments should be accurately positioned (using Latitude and
>Longitude to a precision of one thousandth of a second of arc) by modern
>geodetic means (nowadays by precise GPS or similar satellite observations)
>and referenced to a standard geodetic system such as the World Geodetic
>System of 1984 (WGS84) or International Terrestrial Reference Frame for a
>given year (e.g. ITRF2000, this system is usually updated annually due to
>the four-dimensional nature of precise geodetic datums.) When re-locating
>artificial boundaries the monuments take precedence over the coordinates.
>Coordinates are used when monuments are destroyed or obliterated. Monuments
>disappear usually as a result of theft, destruction, or due to the ravages
>of time and lack of maintenance.
>
>The legal precedence is that natural boundaries have priority over
>artificial boundaries; and monuments on the ground have priority over
>measurements or coordinates (the derivative of measurements.)
>
>When boundaries are in dispute it becomes a matter of law to determine the
>true location of the boundary or the extent of sovereignty of each country
>involved in the dispute. As in most litigation the international court takes
>into account the evidence presented by both sides. Most disputes are over
>artificial boundaries where the best evidence may be contained in historical
>records of treaties, agreements, declarations, decrees, historic boundary
>surveys, maps and all manner of evidence each side can conjure up. Once the
>international court determines the true location of the boundary it should
>be accurately positioned and monumented on the ground with monument
>locations accurately represented by Latitude and Longitude in a standard
>geodetic reference datum as described above.
>
>A note on maps and map scale: International boundary maps are usually
>depicted at very small scales that cover large areas. The standard line
>width on any map is 0.5 millimeters. At a typical scale of 1:5,000,000 the
>boundary represented by a line 0.5 millimeters wide would be 2.5 kilometers
>wide on the ground. Thus, if the boundary is accurately located and drawn on
>the map during the maps construction (often not the case,) using the map as
>a means of relocating the boundary would give you a leeway of 2.5 kilometers
>on the ground, which is hardly an accurate method of boundary re-location.
>If the map has no geodetic datum this leeway can be greater by a factor of
>ten or more, which is 25 kilometers more or less on the ground.
>
>A note on Latitude and Longitude: Latitude and Longitude are measurements of
>arc from the equator and the Greenwich meridian respectively. Latitude and
>longitude are usually expressed in degrees, minutes, and seconds (360
>degrees in a circle, 60 minutes in a degree, and 60 seconds in a minute.) At
>most inhabited latitudes one second of arc represents about 30 meters on the
>ground, hence my recommendation to publish Latitude and Longitude
>coordinates to a thousandth of a second of arc which approximates 3
>centimeters on the ground. To obtain these levels of precision, a geodetic
>version of GPS position receiver operated by a licensed surveyor or
>geodesist is required.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>Dr. Gary Jeffress, Registered Professional Land Surveyor (Texas)
>Professor of Geographic Information Science
>Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences
>Director, Division of Nearshore Research
>Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
>6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412
>Phone 361-825-2720
>Fax 361-825-5848
>
>
>This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController

Maurice Mendelson, Q.C.
Blackstone Chambers Barristers
Blackstone House
Temple, London EC4Y 9BW,
England.

Tel. +44 20 7583 1770; fax +4420 7822 7350; email 
[log in to unmask]
website www.blackstonechambers.com

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and legally
privileged. This e-mail is intended to be read only by the addressee. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail is prohibited and that privilege has
not been waived. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender by replying by email or by telephone and
then delete the e-mail.