Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [borderpoint] Re: Panama Canal Zone

Expand Messages
  • Lowell G. McManus
    Panama was the titular sovereign because it held title to the sovereignty. I suppose one could say that Panama was the de jure sovereign, but the US
    Message 1 of 42 , Dec 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Panama was the "titular sovereign" because it held title to the sovereignty.  I suppose one could say that Panama was the de jure sovereign, but the US exercised de facto sovereignty in the Canal Zone under the treaty.  As for postal affairs, the Canal Zone ran its own postal system and issued its own stamps.  There were no border controls, and Panamanian citizens had the right to enter the Canal Zone (except secure military reservations, etc.) at any time.  Panamanian military vessels had gratis use of the canal.
       
      It is my understanding that Britain acquired actual sovereignty over Hong Kong Island in 1842 and over Kowloon in 1860.  It leased the New Territories from China for 99 years in 1898.
       
      Lowell G. McManus
      Eagle Pass, Texas, USA
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:43 AM
      Subject: RE: [borderpoint] Re: Panama Canal Zone

      This is true, but the US exercised, as Lowell noted, 'titular sovereignty'. Its exercised control over the territory manifested just as any other state would exercise territorial sovereignty on the ground--eg US customs, postage system, military, etc.

      Lowell, would this have been a similar situation as HK with the UK? My understanding is that the UK never actually possessed true sovereignty over Hong Kong, but rather it was a lease from China.

      Dallen
    • kubana2005
      Len, ´´Only´´ 63 countries recognize Kosovo as independent, which is about 30% of countries, not even 50%. Thus we can not consider it legally independent,
      Message 42 of 42 , Dec 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Len,

        ´´Only´´ 63 countries recognize Kosovo as independent, which is about 30% of countries, not even 50%. Thus we can not consider it legally independent, just like other self-decleared territories.
        The UN resolution 1244 which was signed by Yugoslavia regarding Kosovo, guarantees that sovereignity and territorial integrity of FR Yugoslavia (to which Serbia is a succesor state), and the future status of Kosovo should be recognized only if Serbia agrees.

        Unlike the Germanies which were recognized as such by all countries, Kosovo hasn´t. Plus 2 Germanies were reunited.

        In the 20th century there hasn´t been a single independence of a separatist state (assuming full recognition). The right of self-determination is reserved for ex colonies and occupied territories.
        Right now there is a discussion in ICJ whether the decision to decleare independence was in accordance with international law.

        I consider Kosovo - Central Serbia border to be administrative, just like the Cypriot border or Golan Heights - Syria Mainland border.

        Cheers, Alex



        --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard" <lnadybal@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Razvan,
        >
        > Being somewhat of a pragmatist, the current situation with Kosovo is that it declared independence and it has sufficient international support to make it "stick" (e.g., no more or less than there has been for Montenegran and Macedonian declarations). Under the principle of Uti possidetis (at cessation of hostilities, each party retained what it had), given that operation of the Serbian government doesn't extend to that territory now, and given that there is a functioning government that virtually suppressed the operation of the UNMIK in the face of the UN resolution that sent the NATO and everyone else there, I have to recognize that the locals there now are running something fully separate from the influence of the Serbian government (i.e. exercising their own affairs, except within small pockets within the former provincial borders).
        >
        > True, that new administration can't possibly defend itself now or or the forseeable future, and is being held up by third parties (as W. Germany was propped up by the Allies and E. Germany by the Russians from 1949 to about 1955 before and until the two entities were really able to stand on their own). I don't accept that these third parties (NATO, etc.) are there as occupying forces in the sense that the USA, France and the UK were in W. Berlin to keep the Russians and the E. German regime from swallowing up that city. It's different for Kosovo. Kosovo is being supported militarily because the international community (without Serbia and Russia and maybe a couple of other countries) believes there are good reasons for it to not remain under or return to Serbian control. To let Serbia back in would likely mean more violence right now, and the international community doesn't want any more of that.
        >
        > I'm cognizant of the view of Serbia that Kosovo was the cradle of the Serbian being, but, as with Poland, centers of being have shifted. I understand from the Serbian view that Kosovo is occupied. To me, it's not being occupied by a foreign army. When I said in my original message "Kosovo wasn't occupied", it was meant militarily; I wasn't referring to the local Kosovo government. The Kosovo government is presently operating as a sovereign entity using sovereignty it's claiming for itself, that Serbia, pragmatically speaking, didn't set up and can't overcome right now. Kosovo's de facto government is not objecting to the presence of foreign forces within its area of operation, and with the current sovereign not objecting, it can't be an occupation that's going on. Occupying forces are unwelcome by most of the population by definition – and that's not the case here; they're welcome and are invited to stay because (and probably only for as long as) they are needed in the eyes of the Kosovars. Again, the parallel with Germany comes to mind. Bonn (a provisional capital for a government that was hindered from setting up in Berlin, the historical capital) had to tolerate a regime in East Berlin not of its making or liking (but about which it wasn't able to do much for about 50 years, even with its allied military supporters).
        >
        > I recognize that Kosovars weren't any better at being angels than the Serbs were in their struggles of the 1990s. Nevertheless, I hope, if destiny has it planned that the Kosovo remains independent, that the Serbians will recognize the result as a split no more onerous than the separation of Czechoslovakia into two states. If destiny has it planned that the Serbians will end up reassimilating Kosovo into their country, I hope that they'll do it the same peaceful way that W. Germany assimilated East Germany – without blowing the roofs off of peoples' houses.
        >
        > Len
        >
        >
        > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Razvan Novacovschi" <novacovschi@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Kosovo isn't occupied?!? Where have you been since 1999, Len?
        > >
        > > Razvan
        > >
        > >
        > > From: Leonard
        > > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:48 PM
        > > To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Panama Canal Zone
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > RE: Kosovo - Central Serbia -- Kosovo isn't occupied and those who are there with their central government have been widely recognized internationally as independent - why would you consider that border to be other than international, given the standard you apply?
        > >
        > > What would you have considered the borders around west Berlin to have been when the allies were the occupying it and it was also not part of West Germany? Would you have put an international border between the Russian zone in Berlin and the East German DDR if you put one between the western allies' sectors and E. Germany?
        > >
        > > Len
        > >
        > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I don´t consider TRNC - Free Cyprus and Kosovo - Central Serbia border to be international simply because these territories are consider occupied and are not given wide international recognition. Just because an entity occupies a country, doesn´t mean that it is an international border.
        > > >
        > > > However, I consider the border between Morocco - Westarn Sahara and Israel - Palestine to be international, since the territories are not recognized as part of the respective country.
        > > >
        > > > Hong Kong / Macau - Mainland China is also considered to be domestic administrative border.
        > > >
        > > > PR China - RO China (Taiwan), and US Virgin Islands - Puerto Rico is a tricky one. Same with Guam - Northern Mariana, but all maritime borders.
        > > >
        > > > Alex
        > > >
        > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard" <lnadybal@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Well, the Czech port in Hamburg is a leased territory - not the same as PCZ. Extraterritorial rights don't make sovereignty. Kleinwalsertal in Austria is under German customs, currency and other economic laws, but the border between it and Germany is international.
        > > > >
        > > > > The border in Cyprus is established by conquest - you may not recognize the entity in the north, but the border is international - even though its waiting on a peace treaty.
        > > > >
        > > > > Kosovo is another result of beligerancy - an international demarcator exists there, too - waiting on recognition from Serbia - Serbia isn't exercizing sovereignty in Kosovo anymore (except perhaps in small areas inside Kosovo like at Mitrovica which the Kosovo government, last I heard, couldn't really get consolidated).
        > > > >
        > > > > International borders mark the confines of areas where sovereignty of one party vs. another abutt. PCZ borders marked such confines.
        > > > >
        > > > > I think abutt is the right word - you know, where they collide with one another.
        > > > > Len
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I still consider that PCZ have been part of the Republic of Panama with full control of USA. Just like the Czech Republic has a port in Germany with full extraterritorial rights (e.g. Czech police, customs).
        > > > > > The border between mainland Panama and Panama Canal Zone was administrative, not international, just like the border between free Cyprus and Turkish Occupied, or Kosovo and Central Serbia.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong. We already had a discussion, but it never finished.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Regards, Alex
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, Dallen Timothy <Dallen.Timothy@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Sorry to be repetitious folks, but this concept of titular sovereignty
        > > > > > > v. full sovereignty over the Canal Zone is still eating at me. My friend
        > > > > > > pointed out the following paragraph from the State Department Foreign
        > > > > > > Affairs Manual. It doesn't distinguish between the two types of
        > > > > > > sovereignty. In another section of the same manual, it equates
        > > > > > > sovereignty over Guam, the Northern Marianas, and American Samoa as the
        > > > > > > same type of sovereignty the US had over the Canal Zone.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Can anyone help me re-think this through?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Thanks
        > > > > > > Dallen
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1121.1 b(3)
        > > > > > > states:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > (3) Panama Canal Zone. The Republic of Panama, by a Convention that
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > became effective on February 26, 1904, granted the United States
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > sovereignty over an area of about five miles on either side of a
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > canal that was to be built across the Isthmus of Panama to connect
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. U.S. sovereignty over the Panama
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Canal Zone ended on October 1, 1979 in accordance with the
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Panama Canal Treaty (TIAS 10030);
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.