Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 February 16

Humanities desk
< February 15 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 17 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


February 16 edit

The Dneister: An international(ized) river? edit

Is the Dneister actually an international(ized) river free for any country to use without any conditions or requirements? Futurist110 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you wonder that? I'm not sure there is a truly internationalized river in that sense, even those forming international borders. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about the wisdom of having Russia annex Transnistria and subsequently being able to access it without ever actually having to go through any other country's borders. Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How funny, I just saw a travelogue about Transnistria the other day. My take is that if Transnistria formally became Russian territory, and thus Russia having a port on the Dniester, there should be grounds for Russia to demand access to the more southern waters of the Dniester so as to reach that port. But I'm not 100% sure exactly how it works. I suspect that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea may govern (see also Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States). A similar (at least to my ear) dispute is had between the U.S. and Canada over the Northwest Passage. That's over straits rather than a river, but again, my gut instinct is that it's a legally similar situation. The main difference is that the U.S. is not a party to the UNCLOS. Russia is. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that whether Russia is allowed to access Transnistria by sea without it ever actually being at the mercy of any other country by doing this might be the decisive factor in whether or not Russia will ever outright annex Transnistria if Moldova will ever join the European Union. Futurist110 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jeez, what am I thinking. If Russia fully controlled Transnistria they should be able to access the port there under the principle of innocent passage. The seminal case for this was in the early postwar years when some British ships tried to navigate the straits of Corfu and hit Albanian mines. It was entirely necessary for the ships to enter Albanian waters to reach the port at Corfu. UNCLOS may override that to some extent, but the fact that Transnistria would be an enclaved exclave with no other means of reaching it by sea really should be determinative. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of Lake Constance at the edges of which three international borders stop. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:61ED:99C9:1218:5015 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Constance is a little different though, it's a de facto Condominium between the three countries in question: Each country has joint sovereign control over the lake (or functionally does, even if not formalized in law). It is unlike a fully "internationalized" body of water, which is open to all people to access, as with the open oceans. --Jayron32 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]