John Cowan wrote:
The straight-line boundaries between Pacific island nations that are shown on many maps are based on an international convention, but are not legally binding national borders.
I'm confused. Does this mean that there are overlapping claims to sovereignty, or what? What is a "legally binding national border" anyway?
As I understand the situation, sovereignty extends to the land area of each island, plus its territorial waters (the twelve-mile limit, or whatever the individual country claims). The "straight-line boundaries" I was talking about divide a large part of the Pacific into contiguous zones, extending well beyond the limits of sovereignty. Niue, to take a simple example, is shown in my Rand McNally International Atlas surrounded by a rectangle extending from approximately 166.5 to 170.5 degrees West, and 17.5 to 23.5 degrees South. The actual extent of Niue, including its territorial waters, can be contained within a rectangle from about 169.5 to 170.2 degrees West, and 18.7 to 19.4 degrees South. It would take me some time and effort to define "legally binding national border". I would define a "not-legally-binding-national-border" as a line on a map with no particular significance. Does that help? Gwillim Law