Whichever side the Vietnamese are on.
I’m in!
How does anyone know about this? Did the farmer shoot his mouth off?
First sentence of the linked article:
“A local history enthusiast was walking in the forest when he noticed the stone marking the boundary between the two countries had moved 2.29m (7.5ft).”
Well that’s the thing about survey marks: they do have a legal role. As does the treaty. The treaty is just a formalization of the agreement between the two countries. What does the treaty mean? By agreement, it means where the survey mark is. What does the survey mark mean? By agreement, it means where the treaty line is.
After before and during the treaty process, there was a process which fixed the survey marks. The treaty defines the marks. The marks define the treaty.
A friend on a kibbutz in the 1980s described Israelis and Jordanians sneaking out in the night and moving the border back and forth.
Have there been any border wars since that market was placed?
“The Franco-Belgian War of 2021 was the first European war of the 21st century…”
never mind
Must they move the Maginot Line?
I don’t know if the position is different when it comes to international boundaries but at least in Australia, in a boundary location dispute the aim is to determine the original intention of those that made the boundary. That involves researching very closely how the boundary came to be. I had to do it once and it was actually a fascinating process looking through historical records, surveyors diaries etc to figure out the intention.
In a lot of rural areas, boundaries were drawn using a “Circumferentor” which is basically just an oversized compass and not terribly accurate by today’s standards. So there are a lot of potential disputes brewing in rural areas because even an iPhone is easily accurate enough to determine that the location of boundary fences doesn’t match the location (defined by lat/long) shown on survey plans that supposedly define the boundaries.
But often the boundary fence went in first, and the intention behind the first survey was to document the location of the boundary fence rather than to create - by the survey - a boundary based on lat/long. This can mean that the boundary fence is actually a more accurate indicator of the original intention than the survey plan.
Of course precisely the opposite is also possible.
I strongly suspect that if this boundary stone on the French/Belgian border is as easily movable as seems to be the case, it will never have been intended to be the definitive indicator of the boundary.
Seems to me that it would be so much simpler to just store the border as a series of latitude-longitude coordinates in a database, with each point spaced one meter apart from its immediate two neighboring points, and consecutive points being connected by a straight line. No need to deal with primitive artifacts like border stones, and I reckon they only have to update the coordinates every decade or so to account for the effects of continental drift.
With the France-Belgium border being ~620 km, this means the whole thing will only take up a couple megabytes of storage, which is trivial. The only hard part is establishing a central authority which both countries (and other countries in Europe, if they so wish to join), can trust with keeping these sets of data accurate and up-to-date.
No actually the hard part is determining where the border is in the first place, to determine the series of coordinates.
Unless it is mentioned in a serious screenplay.
Well, that’s when the proverbial adults in the room are supposed to all sit down and re-negotiate a modern version of the border that is agreeable to both sides, without starting World War III in the process. Which I guess, considering how people argue over the most trivial things, counts as “hard”.
Yes that was pretty much my point.
The reality is likely to be that the location of the vast majority of the border is totally uncontroversial. Possibly even all of it.
Your suggestion is of course completely sensible for establishing – for the future – the location of the border where uncontroversial. The difficulty is that it’s only where the location of the border is controversial that precise delineation of the border using modern surveying techniques is needed, and that is exactly where the main problem won’t be delineation but deciding where the border should be.
[Edited to add: I’m being a typical lawyer here of course - business people find common ground between them to reach a deal, lawyers worry about the “grey areas” where arguments are going to arise!]
Of course, the first order of business is reading and approving the minutes of the previous meeting.
Which kinda assumes there’s anyone alive who was there and can vouch for them.
Vote on the minutes:
Abstain
Abstain
Abstain
Abstain
Shit
Which is pretty much what I was getting at as well; something easily movable is a terrible boundary marker in a legal sense, so I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the treaty, or some subsequent treaty or legislation defined it in some more accurate and less physical sense.
Or it could be quite possible that piece of land (or the one on the other side of the border) has likely been formally surveyed at some point in the past, starting from some known, non-movable point (“Front door of the church” or some such), and that can be looked up to determine the actual boundary. (which is “precisely the opposite” that @Princhester is talking about)
In any event, the stone is more there to show passers-by where the boundary is, not the actual delimiting thing in a legal sense. To use a modern-day example, a house lot is defined on the ground by the iron pins (usually lengths of rebar) that are driven into the corners of the lot. But there’s also a document somewhere that defines it in terms of something else- the actual lot survey or the plat.