JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for INT-BOUNDARIES Archives


INT-BOUNDARIES Archives

INT-BOUNDARIES Archives


INT-BOUNDARIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

INT-BOUNDARIES Home

INT-BOUNDARIES Home

INT-BOUNDARIES  2004

INT-BOUNDARIES 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Legal Effects of Illustrative maps

From:

Gary Jeffress <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Gary Jeffress <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:29:38 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (95 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager