 |
 |
Ah ha! I have stimulated our learned counsel into giving us the benefit of his vast international legal expertise, which I readily accept as I am not nor profess to be a lawyer. I am a surveyor that has marked and described many a boundary on the ground. In doing so I am following the rules as set down by many court decisions on boundary disputes within the jurisdictions that I have practiced. > 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.) Natural boundaries do take precedence over artificial boundaries where there is a conflict (which rarely occurs) within every jurisdiction that I have practiced surveying. The international court may not have had occasion to address the issue, MM's knowledge on this matter far superior to mine. I believe the legal logic within jurisdictions goes along the lines that a natural boundary is unambiguous (it is there for all to see on the ground) whereas artificial boundaries are open to challenge and interpretation both legally and technically. > 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. I agree with MM entirely. Surveyors who are instructed to re-locate boundaries on the ground do so in a manner that best interprets precedence set by case law. When a conflict arises between monuments on the ground and measurements (or coordinates) of record, most cases have come down in favor of the monuments on the ground. A classic example of this is a Privy Council case, South Australia v. Victoria (1914) AC283. In this case the 141st degree of east longitude proclaimed for the South Australian eastern boundary, was marked on the ground 4.03 kilometres west of its true astronomical position due to a timing error during the original survey. Both states had surveyors on the ground marking the boundary. It was held by the Privy Council that the correct position of the boundary was that established and marked by the surveyors on the ground and agreed upon by the adjoining States, not the published and intended E141 degrees longitude. As every case stands on its own merits disputing parties can, and frequently take their case to court to seek adjudication regardless of prior legal interpretation. > 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. Again I agree with MM. However, if two countries go the expense of marking their common international boundary the cost of the measurement technology is usually insignificant compared the overall cost. The negotiation costs, legal costs, and logistical costs are very significant. In order to reduce future conflicts, the best available measurement technology is a worthwhile investment. Dr. Gary Jeffress, RPLS 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