Humanities desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 25[edit]

How exactly do countries assert control over land when the land is evolving?[edit]

Earth is a geologically active planet. With earthquakes and volcanos, new land can be formed, and old land can be submerged. How do humans assert control over land when the land is constantly evolving? What if a supervolcano erupts and covers everything with ash, with flowing lava destroying the local buildings? What if a huge tsunami comes and floods the coastal areas, making them unstable for habitation. Do humans still assert control over geologically dangerous areas? How can a country maintain border control when the Earth is HUGE? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could depend on the situation, and on whatever treaties a country might have. Hawaii is a good example of such expansion, and I don't know that anyone questions Hawaii's right to control all the new land its volcanoes create. But there's not much near Hawaii anyway, so it's easy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badly, is the answer. Some countries, such as China, have been known to construct artificial islands just so they can extend their sovereign borders. See Great wall of sand. It makes everyone else really mad.--Jayron 32 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese leaders might have read the Dilbert strip in which one character was "illegally" expanding the size of his cubicle by stacking binders up outside the entrance to make additional "walls". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single answer... Sometimes countries have agreements to settle any disputes resulting from changes... sometimes they go to war over the changes... Sometimes they take each other to court. Sometimes they ignore the changed land (and act as if nothing changed). Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of river borders, there is a general principle that if the river changes course gradually and naturally (soil is eroded from one side and deposited on the other, that sort of thing) then the border shifts with it, but if it changes course abruptly (a storm causes a new channel to open) or artificially (canal work, landfill along the river bank) then the border stays where it was. Two examples of borders within the US that stayed where they were are the Iowa/Nebraska state line at Carter Lake and the Bronx/Manhattan borough boundary at Marble Hill. There's some good discussion here. For specific borders it's always possible that they are defined by a treaty or agreement that covers the issue explicitly; for example, a 1908 treaty authorized the Canada/US border in, for example, the Detroit and Niagara Rivers (this would be Article IV of the treaty) to be redefined as a series of straight lines joining a set of points determined by survey. So any shift in those rivers can no longer affect the border. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to many places along the Mississippi, where changes in the river's flow have left pieces of one state now sitting across the river, surrounded by the other state and the current river's flow, hence disconnected from their original state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finland is actually rising into the Baltic due to glacial rebound. As what was seabed becomes land, the person whose shoreline has been extended does not automatically own the new land. The sea is owned collectively, and as it turns into land, it remains public property, but the affected landowner can buy the land at market price. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the person whose shoreline has been extended does not automatically own the new land.^{[Citation Needed]} The sea is owned collectively,^{[Citation Needed]} and as it turns into land, it remains public property,^{[Citation Needed]} but the affected landowner can buy the land at market price.^{[Citation Needed]}" --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the cited article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound#Legal_implications and put your silly bitching there, Guy. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Finland, but usually in the U.S. what is between the low tide line and the three-mile limit is the property of the individual states, while what is between the three-mile limit and the 12-mile limit is the property of the federal government (see Submerged Lands Act etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what happens if I build some dikes and pump out the water -- Holland style -- and thus create a square mile or two of dry land where once there were US territorial waters? For an example where this has happened already, see Battery Park City#Ownership and maintenance. It's not a perfect example, because it was built by a government. What if I built such a thing somewhere in US territorial waters with my own money? Let's say I picked the Cortes Bank as my location. Would I then own it? Could I declare it to be a new country? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accretion is one of the classical methods under international law by which countries' borders change (although this meaning is strangely not listed at the dab page.) This means that, when geological events affect political boundaries, the changes will generally be recognised in international law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What if a supervolcano erupts and covers everything with ash, with flowing lava destroying the local buildings? What if a huge tsunami comes and floods the coastal areas, making them unstable for habitation."

You do not need a supervolcano for this. An ordinary volcanic eruption may easily destroy and/or depopulate nearby human settlements. The Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 wiped out the nearby settlements of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis and Stabiae. The eruption of Soufrière Hills in 1995 rendered much of the island of Montserrat uninhabitable and wiped out the city of Plymouth, Montserrat (which happened to be the capital).

And we have an entire category about Category:Sunken cities, settlements which were lost under water due to natural or man-made disasters. Take for example the city-state of Helike in Greece. It was a relatively powerful city-state in the Peloponnese and had founded its own network of colonies. In 373 BC, a tsunami caused Helike to be completely submerged in the sea, with most of its inhabitants failing to flee in time and perishing. What remained of Helike's lands was annexed by the nearby city-state of Aigio, but Helike remained one of the major tragedies of the ancient world. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly recently, Iceland's land territory extended significantly further south in the 1960s with the eruption of Surtsey, which extended Iceland's southernmost land several dozen kilometers further from the prior southern point. --Jayron 32 12:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://i.imgur.com/GIJPKDi.png Land reclaimation over the centuries in the Netherlands. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that when a country adds land area or gets new land from a volcano in its territorial waters, that country gets to decide who owns the new land. I am still puzzled about what happens legally when a volcano creates a new island in international waters. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The island of Réunion grew by sixty acres as a result of the 2007 volcanic eruption. Not formed by volcanic activity, Rockall (230 miles from Scotland) was simply annexed in 1955, becoming part of Inverness - shire. 46.208.167.127 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is sound body in the will formula?[edit]

Why should it matter as long as they can communicate? (though blinking out a will in Morse Code or binary with high statistical probability of being intentional and of sound mind throughout would take a long time) And the less sound the body the more likely they'll need the will. Is it just to reduce the insult of having to say you're not insane? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a declaration that you are competent and not desperate; not under the care of a quack as you lay dying or subject to coercion. I can't find my legal dictionary, but the phrase mens sana in corpore sano comes from Juvenal and was championed by John Locke. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back up. In what jurisdictions is the phrase "in the will formula"? Is it just a matter of common practice there, or does it have a legal purpose? The specialist lawyer who drafted my will (in Canada) didn't put in any wording about my soundness of any kind. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be the practice, when writing up a will, to begin "I, ........., being of sound mind", etc. I don't know if this is still the case, but it's prudent given how many court cases are brought by people seeking to overturn them. I think this is what the OP is referring to. A lack of soundness in the body is not necessarily mirrored by lack of soundness in the mind. Quite often a testator will also mention (where someone has not been provided for) the reason for this. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada? Where is that? Isn't that the place where Americans who wanted to remain the subjects of a Mad King went? Was he of sound mind or body? (Blue pee?) Or did it not matter, a Protestant God's Archbishop having smeared oil on his forehead? μηδείς (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]