 |
 |
thank you kindly david & i dont think you are missing anything but have just uncovered something that is often missed which is that thalweg boundaries by their intrinsic intent to facilitate traffic tend to stretch their regimes of vague sharing & indefinite delimitation into fullblown mutual easement or even universal innocent passage & benign disregard if that is not pushing it too far but johns perceptive wager that administrative practices will have observed the river itself as the de facto boundary fits right in with this view & if the river is broad enough or desolate enough to resemble the sea in those regards then the riparian parties dont even have to be on especially good terms for a regime of laissez aller by whatever name to work just fine simply because going merrily & gently downstream is better than looking for trouble & given half a chance grace will emerge & prevail so thank you both for bringing that out too & anton thank you for your compliments & for persevering thru your difficulty about the etymology of thalweg perhaps i should just defer to your obviously better knowledge of viennese & your ornate legend will also remain beautiful & true regardless of what follows but my earlier suspicion that the geological definition of thalweg still numbered 1 here below tho conceptually simpler than the navigational ones numbered 2 & 3 might actually be a later rationalization of them now appears to have been well founded for i see westlake here on p144 http://www.scribd.com/doc/27909208/John-Westlake-International-Law-Tomo-01-Peace-1910 says thal in the sense of valley enters into thalweg only indirectly & he continues the immediate origin of the word lies in the use of berg & thal to express the upward & downward directions on a stream like amont & aval in french & i see guthrie here http://books.google.com/books?id=_4CQ2OjipLoC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=bergweg+thalweg&source=bl&ots=wvjr-uHwWg&sig=DS3Po6-eG1maOn03q0XNQSnLD-c&hl=en&ei=4SKdTISsJsX_lgfd7OXZCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=bergweg%20thalweg&f=false writing in the year thalweg first appeared in a boundary agreement as a term of art gives a rare & very clear example of the usage westlake describes for both thalweg & bergweg <http://books.google.com/books?id=_4CQ2OjipLoC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=bergweg+thalweg&source=bl&ots=wvjr-uHwWg&sig=DS3Po6-eG1maOn03q0XNQSnLD-c&hl=en&ei=4SKdTISsJsX_lgfd7OXZCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=bergweg%20thalweg&f=false>so as much as i would like to agree with you because i know you are going out of your way to be agreeable i must turn about & conclude definition number 2 actually came first & that what may have seemed glaringly obvious is actually not so indeed at the maiden appearance of thalweg in the text of the treaty of luneville it is clear that the term made its debut only in the second sense i have enumerated rather than the first & it is equally clear that the third sense had not yet been thought of either for in the early 19th century when boundary rivers still had the character of frontiers & sometimes even formal condominiums an entire navigational channel rather than only its center line could in fact still be stipulated & agreed as a boundary delimtation our necessary standard of precision today was not yet universally applied or even observed back then isnt that nice & lowel thanx too i seem to recall your doing this dance once before when i first wondered if you had never seen a straight river channel or were just a sidewinding meanderer of a fluvial geomorphologist did you call us stuffy but let me say to lowel & anton both since you both appear to be such zealots of the deepest continuous line persuasion i must reverse myself again to differ with you hahaha for i have also just learned or rather have confirmed in the interim since my own previous pontifications that geological thalwegs are in fact commonly discontinuous & perhaps never continuous from headspring to mouth yes that classic trickle you describe will almost surely stop somewhere & pool up & most probably much sooner than later as anyone who has ever watched a river like say the rio grande go dry well knows & i should have mentioned that anomaly up front too for i didnt mean to pull a bait & switch on you but only to let the games begin straight away cheers all a --- On *Fri, 9/24/10, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FW: Thalweg boundaries To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, September 24, 2010, 3:24 PM Aletheia's remarks are acute as usual. They prompt me to a comment I almost made earlier, while reading in this discussion that the purpose of a thalweg boundary is to permit both sides to use the channel. If the thalweg were truly a *line*, as a boundary has to be, then any ship following the thalweg would be half on one side and half on the other. If the two sides are friendly, of course, that wouldn't matter much for most purposes, although it might for some jurisdictional questions. But if they are so unfriendly as to require a boundary agreement to allow ships to access the channel, I don't see how making the channel into the boundary helps very much. No doubt I have not thought this through. What am I missing here? David Phillips San Francisco ------------------------------ *From:* International boundaries discussion list on behalf of aletheia kallos *Sent:* Fri 9/24/2010 12:08 PM *To:* [log in to unmask] *Subject:* Re: FW: Thalweg boundaries great thanxxx john for these advances & suggestion & demand for updated discussion & i would guzzle any stray drafts from the previous fantastic discussion should they ever trickle out but for now let me just perhaps go back upstream a bit regarding the terms thalweg & boundary the 3 different possible meanings of thalweg in relation to boundaries appear to be 1 the succession of deepest points or the deepest continuous line in the river bed 2 the main channel used by navigators when traveling downstream 3 the median line of that main channel the first of these tho it may actually be a rationalization of the second at least appears to convey the simplest & most basic possible sense of the word while the others appear to be progressively derived from it & tho the second meaning may well be the most commonly used cited & understood today in relation to boundaries & is sometimes even considered to be its only proper legal definition nevertheless it is by no means the universal necessary or exclusive meaning indeed for purposes of boundary delimitation a channel especially a major navigational channel would seem to have the glaring defect of not being a purely linear feature at all & of thus producing only an absurdity in that regard even if it is the legal standard which i therefore doubt for indeed the breadth of a channel suits it far less to be a boundary than a frontier in fact let me say it a channel cant be a boundary line at all & no matter whether the frontier zone it produces has de jure or de facto a condominial character or a nondominial character or whether it is even noticed or ignored it is still not a line but an area & a physical fact bound to have consequences a mere line wouldnt have perhaps equally important to notice & distinguish from the start is the fact that downstream navigation channels dont always follow the deepest & steepest line so thalweg can mean not just 2 but 3 different things at once side by side in the same river if its intended meaning is not stated notable too is the fact that thalweg boundaries sometimes occur in nonnavigable rivers & sometimes extend above the height of navigation in navigable ones notwithstanding that it may seem nonsensical for them to do so & in such locations the term thalweg couldnt possibly have navigational significance but could only have the first of the meanings stated above despite the expressly navigational sense it may also have farther downstream another glitch built into the second & third definitions is the fact that the full lateral extent of a navigation channel is often highly variable & or uncertain & is thus often unknown or unknowable much the same as the location of the precise center line of such a channel & like all delimitations based on channels generally most delimitations based expressly on center lines of channels tho on true lines at least would still appear to be only hypothetical & approximative guesses at best & so they too still smack more of frontiers than of true boundaries their uncertainty may simply be less extreme or extensive than that of the full channels but in addition to that uncertainty all 3 senses of thalweg enjoy equally & alike the uncertainty of dynamic nature except perhaps where navigation channels are cast in concrete well i dont mean to flood yall either especially while traveling upstream but i do believe at least that much really had to be said up front & then i would say let the games begin best a --- On *Thu, 9/23/10, John W. Donaldson <[log in to unmask]>*wrote: From: John W. Donaldson <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FW: Thalweg boundaries To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 4:45 AM Just to continue the discussion on what I feel is an important on-going issue, I forward on my message to Gbenga yesterday with some minor additions. The articles and texts that have been referred to in other messages are very useful starting points but I would suggest that the issue demands updated discussion. Great question Gbenga and one that has baffled policy makers and lawyers for centuries. The first step is to see what the boundary treaty says about river movement (will the boundary follow the river or be fixed at a specific date etc.) If the treaty is silent, then it becomes a bit more tricky. The so-called general rules of accretion and avulsion may apply, in that unless parties can identify specific instances of avulsion, then the boundary will follow the river through accretion. I have been doing quite a bit of research on river boundaries looking at much of the juridical history of accretion and avulsion going back to Roman property law and I am not convinced that they are currently recognised as accepted principles in customary international law. There is plenty of national jurisprudence on accretion/avulsion (particularly in the US Supreme Court and English common law) but state practice in international boundary treaties has not been universally consistent. The ICJ has been very cagey about accretion and avulsion, and the closest it has come to drawing any conclusions was in the land section of the El Salvador/Honduras case (and the decision on interpretation) when the Chamber failed to directly state that avulsion was a customary rule of international law. The only international decision/arbitral award I can find that refers directly to accretion and avulsion is the 1911 Chamizal arbitration, which itself was the Mexico-US boundary commissioners with a Canadian arbitrator. So without distinct ‘rules’ it becomes a matter of negotiation. For me the most powerful argument is that if two states choose a thalweg (the main navigation channel – which I believe in legal terms is its proper definition) as a boundary, then the intention ofboth states when agreeing the boundary was to have equal access to navigation along the boundary river. In addition, I would be willing to bet that administrative practices since the original agreement have observed the river itself as the de facto boundary. However, if the river has shifted significantly then of course the state that believes it has ‘lost’ territory will naturally argue that the boundary should be along the course of the river at the date of the treaty. This gives rise to a multitude of administrative/management problems when the river no longer coincides with the boundary and you get bits of territory on the ‘wrong’ side of the river. Governments are obsessed with having a ‘fixed’ river boundary line even if it is just a line of coordinates, but they are just deluding themselves if they believe the river will not continue to move. This obsession with fixing a boundary river can be taken to ridiculous levels as the canalisation of the Rio Grande around Juarez/El Paso illustrates with disastrous environmental effects. Apologies for the not so subtle marketing ploy but we had a fantastic discussion about these very issues at the last IBRU workshop Boundaries and Water back in July. All the very best, John *From:* International boundaries discussion list [mailto: [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Gbenga Oduntan *Sent:* 22 September 2010 09:30 *To:* [log in to unmask] *Subject:* [INT-BOUNDARIES] Thalweg boundaries Dear Colleagues, A Court judgment refers to the thalweg of a river as the boundary between two countries based on a Century old treaty. In the determination of that boundary does a demarcation team look for the thalweg as it was a century ago or is it the thalweg of the river today that applies? My instinct says thalweg boundaries are dynamic but are there contrary views or am I plain wrong? Best regards Gbenga Dr. Gbenga Oduntan Lecturer in International Commercial Law, Kent Law School, Eliot College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NS, UK. Phone: Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817) Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817 Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831 Email: [log in to unmask] http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm