Jump to content

Talk:Condominium (international law)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Svalbard?

[edit]

That was not quite the same: On 14 May 1912 Russia and Norway agreed that Svalbard Island is to be neutral territory (article now sort of a stub; word from Latin neuter, 'neither', in stead of by both). On 9 February 1920 the World Court awarded sovereignty to Norway. 14 August 1925 Formal assumption of sovereignty by Norway (Svalbard Territory). Fastifex 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just wasn't sure of its exact status. I tend to think of it as Norwegian territory, with Russian tolerance. Mind you, Russia was in a state of civil war in 1920, so could hardly put a good case. --MacRusgail 20:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to state the legal & historical facts, leaving every reader to 'think' what he likes, including you. However, I rather doubt whether the military and political stability of either contender at the time was the determining factor in the court's ruling (international courts are generally only seized when the parties have accepted to abide by the ruling), rather the historical dossiers presented that would not be changed- whether these lead to a 'just' decision I cannot say. Fastifex 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisks?

[edit]

Why are there asterisks after Masstricht and Northern Dobruja? I cannot find anything on the page to indicate what they mean - and wikipedia doesn't generally use asterisk footnotes, if that's what they're supposed to point to. - DavidWBrooks 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting no answer, I have removed them. - DavidWBrooks 11:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moselle River

[edit]

I have searched on the Moselle River condominium and found that it was created by treaty in 1816. (See reference in Fiat Objects. I also found it listed in Jan Kroghs website which lists enclaves/exclaves/neutral zones/Condominiums/etc in Europe.

There is also an extencive discussion of the condominium in BoundaryPoint group. See Message 3222, Message 3312, & Message 17254 and their replies. Severl people of the group also have gone on trips the condominium and created webpages Rolf Palmberg and GCEBE 2001 (Group Effort).

(Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the name of the island? If so, please share here.
Jeff in CA 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
At http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BoundaryPoint/files/delu there is a map fragment (select DEFRLUBEDELU.PDF) showing a name in the river next to the island: Staustufe Apach
Jeff in CA 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Before Yahoo Groups were taken down, an archive of the Boundary Point group was made here: https://mexlist.com/boundarypoint/index.htm
The map fragment referenced above can be found here : https://mexlist.com/boundarypoint/8_delu/1_DEFRLUBEDELU.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da.mappr (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why Aland is listed as principality?

[edit]

I can't find explanation neighter in this article, nor in Aland. Alinor 06:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tumen

[edit]

I don't think this is true:

Roadrunner (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC) - can find no reference to this[reply]

The New Hebrides

[edit]

The former New Hebrides was an Anglo-French condominium, with executive formally appointed by the King of Spain, which was problematic during the Second Spanish Republic and Francoist period. This should be covered. 75.216.20.178 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hadf

[edit]

I can find nothing that would suggest that Hadf is a condominium, nor anything else of a special nature. It seems to be simply a small town near Oman's main northern border. Google Maps and ACME Mapper do not show any border around Hadf, nor do they offer anything descriptive. GeoNames viewer shows Hadf as an Omani town. The Hadf Wikipedia article is a one-sentence stub that says nothing about a condominium.

Unless supporting detail is provided, I suggest deleting this entry from the list.

Jeff in CA 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

See http://basementgeographer.com/international-condominiums/
Hadf (Oman/United Arab Emirates)
This small desert village has been officially neutral since 1955 when the United Kingdom was in the middle of negotiating delineation of the ill-defined borders between the various Trucial States (now the United Arab Emirates), and between the emirates and the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman. Hadf was a small village on the border between the emirate of Ajman and Omani territory occupied by a branch of the Banu Kaab (Bani Ka’ab). While boundary negotiations in surrounding areas had been decently cooperative, troops had to be posted in Hadf to keep Ajman and the Banu Kaab apart here as they both claimed the village. Ultimately, it was agreed to share the village as a neutral zone between Ajman and Oman. Here, the emir of Ajman is permitted to collect zakat (a giving of a portion of one’s income to charity by those who can afford it as mandated by Islamic law), but the Banu Kaab are in control of the village and only Oman may interfere in their internal affairs.
The above appears to be based in part on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/borderpoint/message/3566 :
"The agreement which is interpreted by some as constituting a condo is the agreement defining the Hadf zone, signed in Salalah on 26 April 1960 by Sultan Said and in Ajman on 30 April 1960 by Shaikh Rashid, ruler of Ajman. I found the text in The UAE: Internal Boundaries and the Boundary with Oman (ISBN 1-85207-575-9), Vol. 6, pp. 483-484 (English translation on pp. 477-478). This provides for some joint supervision in the zone by the ruler of Ajman and the shaikhs under the rule of Muscat. It allows the Ajman ruler to continue collecting zakat (Islamic tax). The ruler of Ajman is, however, not to interfere in the affairs of the local people, the Bani Ka'ab - this is the sole responsibility of shaikhs which are under Muscat rule.
"I would need to check this agreement against the other one signed around the same time which defined the Sultanate/Ajman border near Masfut (same source, p. 501/502) to see how exactly they are related. I don't know when the Hadf zone agreement was terminated, but it certainly was."
signed, Joachim Duester, 22 May 2008
(emphasis added)
So we see that least one knowledgeable source states that Hadf "certainly" is no longer a condominium.
Jeff in CA 06:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Here are further excerpts from the May 2008 "Borderpoint" group discussion of the so-called condominium in the United Arab Emirates:
I know the maps showing an Ajman/Muscat condo, but they may just be based on mis-interpretation or lack of knowledge.
The territorial dispute between Muscat and Ajman over Masfut started in March/April 1947. The area was under Shaikh Saqr bin Sultan, chief of the Na'im tribe of Buraimi. When Bani Ka'ab tribesmen molested the villagers, Shaikh Saqr did not help them, so they turned to the ruler of Ajman for help. The ruler of Ajman seized the opportunity, helped them, built a tower in Masfut and the villagers accordingly acknowledged him as their overlord. Shaikh Saqr made no attempt to re-capture Masfut, but asked the ruler of Dubai (and probably other influential shaiks) to convince Ajman to hand back Masfut to him. When this failed, he eventually turned to his overlord, the Sultan of Muscat. The Sultan took up the matter with the ruler of Ajman, but was not successful. As Ajman was a British protected state, the Sultan, in early1949, asked the British to put pressure on Ajman to return Masfut, but without result. One reason might have been that in the run-up to the Buraimi conflict, Shaikh Saqr had renounced the Sultan's authority.
As far as I can see, the conflict was solved through the boundary agreement between Ajman and Muscat signed by Sultan Said bin Taimur and Shaikh Rashid bin Humaid al-Nuaimi im April 1961. This agreement defined the borders between Ajman and Muscat territory around Masfut. I do not see anything in the text of this agreement which points to the establishment of a condominium or anything similar to it. ...
signed, Joachim Duester, 21 May 2008
... the joint control of an area by Oman and Ajman does not seem to be accurate as per today. When driving along the Dubai - Hatta highway, the international border is clearly demarcated and very visible due to the fence which they built over the past 2 years. ...
signed, Peter von Werden, 20 May 2008
... the map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UAE_en-map.png is not correct when it comes to the area around Masfut, wrongly shown as being under joint control of Muscat and Ajman. The border issues near Masfut have been sorted out a long time ago. ...
I remember that already in the early 1990s, long before the fence was built, the borders between the Sultanate and the UAE near Hatta, Masfut, Madha etc. were clearly marked by border stones in regular intervals. Despite this, many people at the time did not realize that the famous "Hatta pools" were on Sultanate territory, not on Dubai territory. I believe Hatta was ceded to Dubai by the ruler of Muscat in or after 1871 in recognition of the ruler of Dubai's support to Sultan Turki bin Said (ruler in Muscat 1871-1888) when he successfully campaigned to replace his relative, Imam Azzan bin Qais, as ruler.
signed, Joachim Duester, 20 May 2008
Again, I suggest deleting the item about Hadf from the list.
Jeff in CA 13:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Today I moved Hadf to the former condominia section. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Sea proposal seems outlandish

[edit]

Currently the article contains this statement:

"It has been proposed by Iran that the Caspian Sea be a pentadominium of Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan (its five littoral states), but it is not in fact."

This seems to be such an outlandish fantasy that it does not deserve to be mentioned in this article. Anyone up for removing it?

Jeff in CA 05:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There being no response since I posted above, I have today removed this statement.
Jeff in CA 16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Brčko District

[edit]

I've removed Brčko District from the list of current condominiums, because the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska are not sovereign states, and the article itself defines a condominium as "a political territory (state or border area) in or over which two or more sovereign powers formally agree to share equally...". The Office of the High Representative also dismisses the idea that Brčko is a condominium. There are, however, reliable sources that describe it as such. Some of these, however, clarify that it is a "quasi-condominium" or a "substate condominium" at odds with previous use of the concept. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal Zone

[edit]

Wouldn't the Canal Zone qualify as an Panamerican condominium from 1979 to 1999? 174.137.217.177 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complicated. On 1 October 1979, the day the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 took effect, most of the land within the former Canal Zone transferred to Panama. However, the treaty set aside many Canal Zone areas and facilities for transfer during the following 20 years. The treaty specifically categorized several hundred areas and facilities by name as:
  • “Military Areas of Coordination”,
  • "Defense Sites" and
  • "Areas Subject to Separate Bilateral Agreement".
These were to be transferred by the U.S. to Panama during certain time windows stated in the treaty or simply by the end of the 243-month treaty period.
Many other parcels were designated as “Areas of Civil Coordination" (housing), which under the treaty were subject to elements of both U.S. and Panamanian public law.
In addition, the 1977 treaty designated numerous small areas and individual facilities as “Canal Operating Areas” intended for joint U.S.-Panama ongoing canal operation by a newly defined commission.
Just after noon local time on 31 December 1999, all former Canal Zone parcels of all types had come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Panama. Jeff in CA (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Condominium (international law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Tunnel

[edit]

Does the service tunnel qualify, as it's shared between the UK and France? REH11 (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Antarctica really a "condominium" if it's divided?

[edit]

The article defines a condominium as "a political territory in or over which multiple sovereign powers formally agree to share equal dominium and exercise their rights jointly, without dividing it into "national" zones."

Then the first example the article lists is Antarctica. Antarctica is divided into national zones, and thus, by this definition, is not a condominium.

Clarification needed - either the definition needs to be adjusted for accuracy, or Antarctica should be removed from the list.

Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence[reply]

I think you are correct, for the reason you give and for other reasons in the Treaty. The 'condominium' article tries to get around this by using the term 'de facto condominium', which is a catch all phrase open to opinion. But there are enough parts of the Treaty that clearly do not envisage joint sovereignty that even calling it a de facto condominium is stretching it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dispite the various territorial claims, none of those territories have sovereignity. All relations in Antarctica are jointly govereigned under the Antarctic Treaty System, which makes it fit the definition of a condominium. Lgnlint (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bodensee

[edit]
Austria, Germany, and Switzerland consider themselves to hold a tripartite condominium (albeit on different grounds) over the main part of Lake Constance (without its islands). On the other hand, Switzerland holds the view that the border runs through the middle of the lake.

Should Switzerland be removed from the first sentence? —Tamfang (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Condominium_(international_law)&oldid=1206769349"