The solution to this problem should be based on logic and should that fail, then whoever is stronger should get whatever he or she wants.
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:27:59 +0300
> Subject: Re: [wanabidii] Why Lake Malawi dispute should solve basing on the 1982 UN convention
> From: tmagobe@gmail.com
> To: wanabidii@googlegroups.com
>
> Actually, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
> (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982) the author is referring to is not
> helpful as far as I understand it. This is what it says:
>
> Article 15: Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with
> opposite or adjacent coasts
>
> Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other,
> neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them
> to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line
> every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the
> baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of
> the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply,
> however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other
> special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two
> States in a way which is at variance therewith.
>
>
> On 7/31/13, Abdalah Hamis <hamisznz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Author: Dr A. Massawe/massaweantipas@hotmail.com
> >
> > Validity of the 1890 Heligoland treaty ended with the liberation of Malawi
> > and Tanzania from European colonialism because by addressing colonial
> > interests alone, the treaty violated the traditional rights of affected
> > communities in Tanzania and Malawi on Lake Nyasa (Malawi) they shared
> > peacefully for generations before the arrival of European colonialists. The
> > 1890 Heligoland treaty should therefore end with the end of colonialism in
> > the two countries it affected because retaining
> > itby liberated Malawi and Tanzania, favours affected communities on the
> > Malawian side at the expense of their counterparts on the Tanzanian side
> > who were not consulted in the colonial institution of the treaty and/ or
> > never approved it.
> >
> > Also, the 1963 OAU Resolution which stated that countries shall adopt and
> > adhere to the borders that they inherited on their attainment of
> > independence and officially drawn on July 21, 1964 is also not
> > justification of validity of the 1890 Heligoland treaty after the end of
> > European colonialism in
> > Malawi and Tanzania because the communities
> > it would victimize for generations on the Tanzanian side were also not
> > consulted in the drawing of this OAU resolution.
> >
> > True owners of Lake Malawi (Nyasa) are generations of communities who
> > shared its coastlines in Malawi, Tanzania and Mozambique for generations
> > before the arrival of European colonialism and any agreement or resolution
> > which violates the traditional rights of any affected community on the lake
> > for generations should be considered illegal unless approved by the
> > community it would victimize. And, even if approved by the community it
> > victimizes validity of such approval should not hold for future generations
> > of the affected community because these deserve the right to decide for
> > themselves on the
> > manmade treaty or resolution violating their traditional right on the lake.
> >
> > Therefore the 1890 Heligoland treaty and the 1963 OAU resolution on borders
> > are human errors which should be corrected and therefore not justification
> > of the colonial border which denies affected Tanzanian communities their
> > deserved share of Lake Malawi (Nyasa) for generations because they would be
> > victims were not consulted nor approved inaction of both the 1890
> > Heligoland treaty and the 1963 OAU resolution on national borders.
> >
> > Consequently, resolution of lake Malawi (Nyasa) dispute should base on the
> > most up to date 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea whichrequires
> > international borders to be erected on the middle of the water bodies
> > encountered on their courses because this was enacted to address violations
> > of the traditional rights of affected communities On water bodies for
> > generations in previous treaties and/or resolutions.
> >
> > --
> > Send Emails to wanabidii@googlegroups.com
> >
> > Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
> > wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha
> > ukishatuma
> >
> > Disclaimer:
> > Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal
> > consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be
> > presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to
> > this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Wanabidii" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Send Emails to wanabidii@googlegroups.com
>
> Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
> wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
>
> Disclaimer:
> Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wanabidii" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> Subject: Re: [wanabidii] Why Lake Malawi dispute should solve basing on the 1982 UN convention
> From: tmagobe@gmail.com
> To: wanabidii@googlegroups.com
>
> Actually, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
> (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982) the author is referring to is not
> helpful as far as I understand it. This is what it says:
>
> Article 15: Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with
> opposite or adjacent coasts
>
> Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other,
> neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them
> to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line
> every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the
> baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of
> the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply,
> however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other
> special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two
> States in a way which is at variance therewith.
>
>
> On 7/31/13, Abdalah Hamis <hamisznz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Author: Dr A. Massawe/massaweantipas@hotmail.com
> >
> > Validity of the 1890 Heligoland treaty ended with the liberation of Malawi
> > and Tanzania from European colonialism because by addressing colonial
> > interests alone, the treaty violated the traditional rights of affected
> > communities in Tanzania and Malawi on Lake Nyasa (Malawi) they shared
> > peacefully for generations before the arrival of European colonialists. The
> > 1890 Heligoland treaty should therefore end with the end of colonialism in
> > the two countries it affected because retaining
> > itby liberated Malawi and Tanzania, favours affected communities on the
> > Malawian side at the expense of their counterparts on the Tanzanian side
> > who were not consulted in the colonial institution of the treaty and/ or
> > never approved it.
> >
> > Also, the 1963 OAU Resolution which stated that countries shall adopt and
> > adhere to the borders that they inherited on their attainment of
> > independence and officially drawn on July 21, 1964 is also not
> > justification of validity of the 1890 Heligoland treaty after the end of
> > European colonialism in
> > Malawi and Tanzania because the communities
> > it would victimize for generations on the Tanzanian side were also not
> > consulted in the drawing of this OAU resolution.
> >
> > True owners of Lake Malawi (Nyasa) are generations of communities who
> > shared its coastlines in Malawi, Tanzania and Mozambique for generations
> > before the arrival of European colonialism and any agreement or resolution
> > which violates the traditional rights of any affected community on the lake
> > for generations should be considered illegal unless approved by the
> > community it would victimize. And, even if approved by the community it
> > victimizes validity of such approval should not hold for future generations
> > of the affected community because these deserve the right to decide for
> > themselves on the
> > manmade treaty or resolution violating their traditional right on the lake.
> >
> > Therefore the 1890 Heligoland treaty and the 1963 OAU resolution on borders
> > are human errors which should be corrected and therefore not justification
> > of the colonial border which denies affected Tanzanian communities their
> > deserved share of Lake Malawi (Nyasa) for generations because they would be
> > victims were not consulted nor approved inaction of both the 1890
> > Heligoland treaty and the 1963 OAU resolution on national borders.
> >
> > Consequently, resolution of lake Malawi (Nyasa) dispute should base on the
> > most up to date 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea whichrequires
> > international borders to be erected on the middle of the water bodies
> > encountered on their courses because this was enacted to address violations
> > of the traditional rights of affected communities On water bodies for
> > generations in previous treaties and/or resolutions.
> >
> > --
> > Send Emails to wanabidii@googlegroups.com
> >
> > Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
> > wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha
> > ukishatuma
> >
> > Disclaimer:
> > Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal
> > consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be
> > presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to
> > this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Wanabidii" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Send Emails to wanabidii@googlegroups.com
>
> Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
> wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
>
> Disclaimer:
> Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wanabidii" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment