Talk:Condominium (international law)

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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?

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

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)

why Aland is listed as principality?

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

Tumen

I don't think this is true:

* The Tumen River is a condominium between China and North Korea.

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

- * Part of the Tumen River is reportedly a condominium of China and North Korea adjacent to the tripoint with Russia.

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

The New Hebrides

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

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

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

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]