International law without terminus ? Reflections on Delimitation


While there is obviously no need to prove the importance of borders in the contemporary world, it is interesting to recall that the concern with where they run and questions of delimitation only became significant relatively recently, in the course of the eighteenth century. A notable exception to this is the question of border rivers whose meanderings modify supposedly ‘natural’ boundaries. Moreover, in contemporary practice, it is realised that the fact that many borders are not yet delimited and are still disputed is prejudicial neither to the definition of the State nor to the establishment of international relations. Even so, borders are a fundamental component of peaceful international relations, contrary to what supporters of a fully globalised world advocate, and it is best that hostile walls should not take their place.



International law without terminus?


Reflections on delimitation[1]


Denis Alland





“A century before the time of the celebrated treaty of Westphalia, a Pope (…) published the famous bull which divided between the Spaniards and the Portuguese those territories which the enterprising genius of discovery had already given, or might afterwards give, to the two nations, in the Indies and in America. The finger of the Pontiff traced a line on the globe, which the two nations agreed to consider as a sacred boundary, which ambitions should respect on either side.”

Joseph de Maistre, The Pope, Considered in His Relations with the Church, Temporal Sovereignties, Separated Churches, and the Cause of Civilization. Transl. Rev. Æneas McD. Dawson (1850), London, C. Dolman, chap. XIV, ‘The Bull Inter Cætera’, p. 215.


Limitation is a somewhat misleading subject. One sets about it with the feeling of having food for thought served up by numerous treaties, abundant practice, and no less abounding precedent; a quite easily identifiable topic, then. These first intuitions encourage one to imagine a dissertation on the delimitation of borders drawn from the hoped-for harvest of future readings on the classical doctrine of the law of nations, from which one does not a priori rule out including some comparison with contemporary conceptions. It promises to be a journey of a reasonable length, one thinks, with the eagerness of beginnings, when promises have not yet been dulled by actual achievements. Disillusion comes quickly, for the scales struggle to tip under the weight of the would-be facts that had seemed so promising at the beginning. First, one totters under historical monographs – there are some for almost every border – and one plies beneath the burden of studies on territory, territorial titles, and the delimitation of maritime areas. Yet, on the act of delimitation, studied for itself more than through the contribution it makes to theories of territory, of borders, or even of the State, sources become significantly scarcer, particularly as the methods of delimitation of borders have been excluded from the subject as proposed to the present author. Second, borders fade as one goes back in time. The multiple bounds of the past that we did not think of are compounded or superseded by those of today, which we do not really know what to do with, with the result that the naive clarity of our initial suppositions blurs painfully: among the many kinds of spatial divisions evoked in a jumble of texts of all sorts (diplomatic archives, political philosophies, mythologies, anthropologies, religions, doctrines of the law of nations, etc.),[2] which are the ones that ought to be selected for a subject proposed to a reader of international law?


That reader will reply without hesitation that one need only look at what is relevant today, namely the delimitation of borders. And how could he be wrong? And yet, there may be a few drawbacks in holding to this view alone. What can one hope to get out of the history of doctrines when such doctrines appear to have hardly concerned themselves with borders and their delimitation over the long term? The question calls for a few remarks on delimitation in general before turning to those aspects more specific to international law.


I - On the question of limits and delimitation in general


A. Two Old stories


A certain mythological tradition holds that, in early times, fields were not bounded and everything was common land. Men did not know individual property until, over the course of time, they lost their primal wisdom and gave free rein to their baser passions. From then on, the greed of what had now become harsh and selfish men doomed the world to disorder and strife to the point that Ceres interceded, ordering each landowner to bound his field with trees or stones. As evidence of the frequent transition from the world of mythology to that of religious institutions, this boundary marker was thereafter honoured as a god, who was named Terminus, first worshipped it is said by Numa Pompilius towards the end of the eighth century BC. At first a plain stone, the statue of the god subsequently took on the form of a footless, often armless man set on a pyramid-shaped marker. Terminus, he who does not move. Ancient engravings of these statues often have bases with the inscription nulli cedo or concedo nulli. Terminus, he who does not yield his place.

In the ancient Mesopotamian room of the Richelieu wing of the Louvre Museum, visitors can admire a stele dating from 2450 BC, known as the ‘Vulture stele’, of which Victor Hugo supposedly said on contemplating it that it came from a time when the Earth ‘was still wet and soft from the flood’.[3] Engraved on it are scenes recounting a battle between the Sumerian cities of Lagash and Umma, a battle for irrigated fields on the boundaries of their two territories.[4] No one will ever know if that war had as its cause the indeterminacy of the bound or if its effect was to fix that bound (to the victor’s advantage as always), or the two at once. However, the fragments of this account sculpted in stone tell us that war and ‘bounds’ tied the closest bonds imaginable. As Lord Curzon said, ‘Frontiers are indeed the razor’s edge on which hang suspended the modern issues of war or peace, of life or death to nations’.[5]

More broadly still, these age-old representations stretching into a past in which history is steeped in mythical times[6] – in which can be evoked the founding of Rome by the tracing of a furrow, the inaugural and foundational bound that Remus fatally failed to observe – remind us that while delimitation may be a cause of war, there can be no peace without delimitation .


B. On Different manners of studying things


Perhaps there will quite naturally be doubts about the relevance of such evocations for inaugurating learned and technical work on delimitation in public international law. Two reasons might prompt us to set aside such natural doubt, at least provisionally.

The first reason pertains to how difficult it would be to justify even at length the ambit within which to enclose ‘doctrine’ to be drawn on here. Not just because generally no reference could be made to ‘doctrine’ without some more or less arbitrary choices, but also for substantive reasons. It proves difficult to confine ourselves to the very terms (delimitation/frontier) in which the subject presents itself to us today because the term ‘frontier’ is historically marked, its meaning has changed, as has the interest shown in it. In other words, since the frontier is only a particular species of a much broader genus, that of bound, it is important to not be overly specialised in thinking, at least initially, if only to determine at what point, why, and in what circumstances this bound that has become a ‘frontier’ appears as an operative (and fundamental) concept of public international law. Consequently, anyone wanting to set about in-depth work on the subject should probably be invited to extend their research beyond the mere political border as it is understood today and beyond the doctrine that is roughly marked down as ‘foundational’ for the law of nations.[7]

The second reason draws on the very style and methods of doctrine. While it is certainly no longer contemporary fashion to invite the humanities overly into the reflection of jurists, things were long otherwise. There is no doubt at all that, as we shall see below, Grotius found it natural and relevant to call on the goddess Ceres to illustrate the subject of the division of the land in his celebrated De jure belli ac pacis of 1625, which also contains nearly a dozen or so allusions to Romulus. Although his book is not strictly a treatise on international law, as has been masterfully demonstrated,[8] even so the method of exposition and argument specific to Grotius, and truth to tell, to a whole bygone era, explains the legitimate feeling of strangeness that a contemporary international jurist may have about certain references.[9] Such a jurist is quite reasonably given to consider that Cicero, Homer, Saint Ambrose, Seneca, Saint John Chrysostom, Virgil and Aristotle do not belong to the circle of authorities and sources specifically essential for forming an opinion on so precise a subject as frontiers and their delimitation.

It is possible both to share this feeling and to try to see whether what is slightly dated literature can still, in some respects, provide lessons for a contemporary understanding of these matters. This at any rate is the perilous task that has fallen to me and that shall be taken up here merely, it should be emphasised from the outset, by evoking a few avenues of enquiry.


C. Bound, division of space and law


There is no property whether public or private without a division of space, without an outline called ‘delimitation’. Law, the essential function of which is to stylize the real world, to divide it up into conceptual categories by those other delimitations that constitute the operations of characterisation, is both the instrument and the outcome of spatial divisions. There is debate – as shall be seen below with respect to the bounds formed by certain rivers – about whether the delimitation of property and the delimitation of borders between peoples come down to the same thing, but the connection between delimitation (in general) and law is unanimously upheld.

An investigation into ‘bound’ and ‘delimitation’ in the whole of Grotius’ On the Law of War and Peace leads us straight to Book II, chapter II entitled ‘Of things which belong to men in common’. Eager to show how the question of ‘bound’ is coextensive with the question of property, our venerable author explains in what way the question of bounds arose by referring largely to a corpus of ancient mythology and Bible stories:

‘Soon after the creation of the world, and a second time after the Flood, God conferred upon the human race a general right over things of a lower nature. […] In consequence, each man could at once take whatever he wished for his own needs, and could consume whatever was capable of being consumed. The enjoyment of this universal right then served the purpose of private ownership; for whatever each had thus taken for his own needs another could not take from him except by an unjust act […] Men did not, however, continue to live this simple and innocent life […] Finally, with increase in the number of men as well as of flocks, lands everywhere began to be divided, not as previously by peoples, but by families […] From these sources we learn what was the cause on account of which the primitive common ownership […] was abandoned […] At the same time, we learn how things became subject to private ownership. This happened not by a mere act of will […] but rather by a kind of agreement, either expressed, as by a division, or implied, as by occupation. And when the ancients called Ceres a ‘lawgiver’ and named her sacred rites the Thesmophoria, they implied that out of the division of lands a new law had arisen.’[10]

A later variant is to present this same argument negatively; man’s failure to recognise the Earth’s natural divisions and their replacement by artificial bounds is supposedly the source of contention, dispute and ultimately war. This is expressed by the geographer Buache de La Neuville : ‘Nature had herself divided out the earth from its origins. She had divided its surface into an infinity of parts and had separated them by barriers that neither the passage of time nor any human inventions shall ever be able to destroy. But Man failed to recognise this natural division; he shared out the earth as his ambition saw fit; he settled the bounds of his possessions according to his strength and power […] Hence the origins of contention between neighbouring peoples […] This natural and unvarying division that will last until the end of time, being applied to the division of states, would remove all matters of contention and forever ensure the tranquillity of peoples’.[11]

The human introduction of bounds, derived from the sharing out of geographical space, therefore has an inaugural function. It takes us from the time of the community (or as may be for peoples from the natural geographical division) to that of the bound,[12] it is akin to the creation of political society and its system of law. This is what is to be understood, of course, in Rousseau’s famous cry (of despair, but that is another story) uttered in 1754 in his Discourse on Inequality: ‘The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.’ There were many ‘foolish’ enough to believe the fence was legitimate whereas people should continue to think that ‘the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody’.[13] These texts and many others of the same kind staging the dividing up of space and the first dramatic events arising from outlines and delimitations may well be regarded as forms of conjecture. Even so they have a sure function in the history of representations. The themes they convey belong to a sort of cultural invariant, from the Bible down to the Moderns.

It is possible to become persuaded of this by thinking over a text by Kant that is fairly gripping in many respects and entitled Conjectural Beginning of Human History. Kant invites us to follow him in his reading of Genesis and conjecture about the time when labour and discord emerged simultaneously because of the rivalry between herders and cultivators. The hard life of farmers required ‘permanent dwellings, ownership of the land and sufficient power to defend the latter. The shepherd hates this ownership, however, as it limits his freedom of pasture.[14] In this way, Kant went on, the ploughman was probably the first to use force to protect his land against damage done by more or less nomadic herders, with the result that – it is tempting to add – the murder of the herder Abel by the cultivator Cain records a structuring figure of consideration of warfare related to two irreconcilable representations of the use of space arising from opposing relations in the working of nature: the representation of freedom and passage, even if detrimental to others, and the representation of the boundary and cordoning off in the defence of a territory, even if it means land grabbing.[15]

Of this attitude, Kant too says, ‘But above all a civil constitution and public justice began to be instituted.’[16] So after mythology and the law of nations, delimitation draws us once more towards a fundamental theme of political philosophy from Hobbes to Schmitt by way of Locke and the French revolutionaries: the birth of the city and its law, conveying discrimination between the citizen and the foreigner, separation between the ‘country’ and ‘foreign lands’, as the fundamental requisite for the existence and cohesion of the city, an ensemble implying drawing its geographical perimeter, inscribing it in space.

More broadly still, it can be said that being, thought and bound are absolutely inseparable. As Lévi-Strauss recalled, any identity, any thought, is an identity and a thought of limits, those that separate – empirically or discursively – one thing from another, one city from another and self from other. Does not our judgment operate via an activity of discrimination, there again, between a being, real or ideal, and another, which requires outlines and bounds?[17]  ‘The self becomes aware of itself when it comes into contact with non-self’ said the founder of the French school of geography, Vidal de la Blache of Alsace-Lorraine.[18]

Plainly, the subject of delimitation is drawn up to such heights that it is lost from sight! To keep it closer to us, we must try to enclose it within bounds that are reasonable without being too anachronistic.


II - Limits and the delimitation of frontiers as central parameters of public international law


It is pointless returning to the times and the style of legal humanism to observe that the very general views that precede apply to international law with a relevance that its very subject intensifies: organising and subjecting some of the relations maintained by entities – primarily states – to the very distinction from which international law draws it reason for being.


A. The world cordoned off into states


The political divisions of space date back to the earliest of ancient times, as attested to by Egyptian boundary markers and treaties on the delimitation of frontiers between Assur and Babylon in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC. It might be thought that their function had scarcely any reason to differ markedly from what is expected of our contemporary borders. However, historical research into these questions calls for nuances because it seems that the practices of drawing bounds ‘proved […] diverse depending on the types of contact and state apparatus in action’.[19] The frontier and its delimitation as such matter less than what is encircled: empire, polity, state, city. In other words, the characteristics of frontiers derive from the nature of the political objects that they delimit; ‘Such and such a type of state, such a bound, and, where appropriate, such a frontier in the military and political sense of the word’, Febvre wrote in a foundational article.[20] And so the universalization of the state political model necessarily marks a decisive stage in apprehending and delimiting frontiers. This is why some authors have emphasised this turning point in history when the division of the world into state-ruled areas becomes generalised, this point in time that humanity has gradually come to and of which Rousseau gives a nightmarish description: ‘It is easy to see how the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary, and how, in order to make head against united forces, the rest of mankind had to unite in turn. Societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth, till hardly a corner of the world was left in which man could escape the yoke, and withdraw his head from beneath the sword which he saw perpetually hanging over him by a thread.’[21] The reign of these highly specific bounds that political borders form is supposedly the end-result of this grim evolution. Rousseau claims that the complete political delimitation of the world spawned the worst of evils – war, which, by replacing one-to-one conflicts and making a virtue of the duty to slit one’s neighbour’s throat, cast humanity into an incomparably more dire misfortune than the one it hoped to escape from through becoming sociable. From this perspective, political delimitation supposedly enshrined the universal rule of Ares definitively.

Addressing things less philosophically than Rousseau, it can be said that power and jurisdiction over geographical space have been divided on an ‘international’ scale factually, that is, they have been shaped by the balance of power, with the result that international law emerged as a historical necessity and the map and the conditions for its deployment have drawn themselves. As the International Court of Justice said, to determine areas over which states are authorised to exercise their sovereign rights, ‘It is therefore necessary to establish the boundary or boundaries between neighbouring States, that is to say, to draw the exact line or lines where the extension in space of the sovereign powers and rights of [Greece] meets those of [Turkey].’[22] Boundaries and their delimitation are therefore, at first sight at least, the conditions for international law – which they underpin – coming about and developing. It has recently been argued in the International Court of Justice that ‘territory is the essential framework for the exercise of State sovereignty and constitutes the spatial context for the very existence of the State’, it being specified that ‘the foundational norm of respect for the territorial integrity of States’  links ‘the very essence of international law as a State-focused system with the notion of binding international regulation of the most serious issues as mandated by the Security Council of the United Nations.’[23] In his lectures on terrestrial borders, Bardonnet emphasised that ‘The inviolability of borders is the application of the non-use of force in terms of territorial integrity.’[24] Under such circumstances, how could borders encompassing the territory of states not be absolutely central parameters of public international law, to the extent that it would be legitimate to speak of them as an ‘obsession’?

B. Obsession


Obsession: this is the term sometimes used to characterise the relation between the state and ‘its’ territory.[25] And yet – as just briefly mentioned – delimitation in general is far more than a simple ‘historical obsession’. There is every reason to think that the delimitation of boundaries in the current sense (for example as it results from the quotation from the Court of The Hague above) is – if the term had to be kept – a contemporary ‘obsession’.

It is not pointless demonstrating at length why some speak of the delimitation of borders as a contemporary ‘obsession’. Michel Foucher’s excellent book, L’obsession des frontières, leaves no room for doubt on this. The author provides some revealing figures: in the last twenty years political boundaries have been increasing constantly: more than 28,000 kilometres (17,500 miles) of new international borders have been established since 1991, a further 24,000 kilometres (15,000 miles) have been the subject of delimitation and demarcation agreements, and still only 30 per cent of potential maritime borders have been the subject of negotiated delimitation treaties.[26] It can be added that certain international organisations have originated out of the intent to settle border and territorial disputes; this is the case of the ‘Shanghai Five’, an association set up in 1996 to determine the former borders between the USSR and China, and that became the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2001, with competency now extending beyond border issues.

All international jurists are aware of the growing international litigation over these issues,[27] countless PhD theses, colloquia and studies have been given over to them, and it would be pointless emphasising or expounding anew the part played in these matters by the emergence of new states, the fall of the Berlin wall, demands for self-determination and the right of peoples to self-determination when those people aspire to form a state,[28] the race for militarily strategic spaces and resources of all kinds. On the question of resources, it can be observed that the dynamic of land-grabbing has led to ever growing demands in the degree of precision of delimitations made or to be made, above all for cross-border reserves,[29] bringing an end to an ancient international practice whereby zones were deliberately left out of any delimitation.[30] All of this is proven and incontrovertible.

And yet it is not sure that this obsession is ‘historical’ if this is to be understood as meaning it has always existed and is to continue indefinitely. An attempt might be made to supplement or even nuance this presentation in some respects for historical and doctrinal reasons calling first for some degree of relativisation and next for practical and contemporaneous reasons, when it is realised that sometimes the delimitation of their borders becomes a secondary concern of states.


III - The historical mark of concern with the delimitation of boundaries


As Nietzsche well showed, history is the grave of certainties. Our subject is no exception. The idea that states might always have had a thing about (not to say been obsessed with) delimiting their borders runs aground there, like so many other ideas. To underscore this aspect of things is not to deny that there have long been delimitations. The outstanding and quite complex example of the 1493 attribution by the papal bull of Alexander VI, Inter Cætera (followed by the 1494 treaty of Tordesillas) must be cited but would require developments that cannot be allowed here for a precise appreciation of its contribution to the question of the delimitation of frontiers.[31] Even so, this example and somewhat sporadic practice apart, it is only in a relatively recent past that delimitation has become the ardent concern that we know today. In scholarship, before a turning point that can be situated roughly in the middle of the eighteenth century (and partly under the impetus of the policy of the French monarchy), the delimitation of borders was not a major preoccupation, except from the rather peculiar angle of border rivers that have been much emphasised.


A. Historical emergence of concern with the delimitation of frontiers


‘Whoever has made the least study of the frontiers of the Empire, in Africa or in the Orient for example, would be in a quandary if asked point blank to say where the Roman frontier ran exactly and to point with map in hand to the limit to which the imperium romanum extended […] more still than the location of the termini imperii, it is the very concept of Roman frontier, in the sense in which we ordinarily understand the term, that is in question […] the frontier, as it is universally meant at present – that of the nation-state […] makes it difficult to grasp this odd historical object that has become for us the outer envelope of a universal empire, a world-empire, and so a multinational one and that is supposed to be conflated with the oecumenia, [the known world].’[32]  This point, already made in Momsen’s Le droit public romain or the works of Lapradelle[33] does not imply that we must here go back as far as the Romans, but it is enough to suggest how relative the idea of border is. It also emphasises a trend that the contemporary world is far from having discredited: every empire’s aversion for national political borders.

It so happens that, having begun with very fuzzy and then – from the seventeenth century on – cautious conceptions related to the doctrine of its ‘natural’ frontiers, France played a particular role in this development – quite contrary to those imperial conceptions – of the language and practices of boundaries because of a gradually asserted political will to delimit – as an act of separation of public authorities – the kingdom in an increasingly precise manner, to the extent that, to emphasise its role in elaborating the modern national frontier, the nation has been characterised as a ‘traceuse de frontières’, a ‘draughter of boundaries’.[34] But even so it was a movement that was relatively late in coming and it took more than four centuries for the word ‘frontière’ to take on its contemporary meaning of a boundary between states. As Lapradelle summarises, from the monarchic conception of the frontier there ‘results up until the end of the seventeenth century, the complete absence of treaties on boundaries. The non-delimitation stems in part from the monarchy’s dislike for any limit other than a natural one and from the difficulty in setting out boundary markers when there was such confusion over estate rights, and, to some degree, so many shortcomings in map-making knowledge’.[35]

The development of French terminology on frontiers helps in situating the word ‘within the vast range of bounds’;[36]  borne, confins, marche, limite, marque, démarcation, front, terme, frontière… A mid-eighteenth century thesaurus, although very precise, makes no mention of the word ‘frontière’ and notably not under the heading ‘Termes, Limites, Bornes’ : « Le terme est où l’on peut aller. Les limites sont ce qu’on ne doit point passer. Les bornes sont ce qui empêche de passer outre. On approche ou l’on éloigne le terme. On resserre ou l’on étend les limites. On avance ou l’on recule les bornes. Le terme et les limites appartiennent à la chose ; ils la finissent. Les bornes lui sont étrangères ; elles la renferment dans le lieu qu’elle [la chose] occupe, ou la contiennent dans sa sphère […] On a dit avec plus d’éloquence que de vérité que les limites de l’Empire romain étoient celles du monde ».[37] The frontière, related to ‘front’ has a military connotation that neither limite nor marche had.[38] The old definitions of frontière – a term replete with the ‘front’ from which it stems – present it as a variety of limite that had to be well guarded. A reading of the abbé de Mably confirms that occurrences of ‘frontière’ are almost invariably military references, and they also indicate – which is surprising and probably somewhat odd in the late eighteenth century – that the author continues to think that the precision of the limits to the territory are of interest only to the inhabitants of border regions, as this passage shows: ‘The different treaties that have been concluded between France and the Court of Turin not having fixed in a precise enough manner the limits of the two states, the kings of France and of Sardinia viewed with equal pain the quarrels which arose from time to time between their subjects and that sometimes even caused assaults, as contrary to the intention of their majesties as to the ties of blood and friendship that unite them, and to the perfect understanding they wish to maintain and perpetuate between the peoples subject to their dominion. To prevent any such discussions, the respective limits of the two states of the two powers have been fixed exactly and definitively; and consequently they have agreed that the Rhône henceforth forming by the middle of its greatest course a natural limit and without enclave… Were I to follow here, with the greatest exactness, all the lines, all the bounds, all the tributaries that separate the lands of Savoy or of Piedmont from those of France, I would certainly not be understood by my readers; it would be necessary to lay before their eyes the very map on which the commissioners of the two powers laboured. Fortunately these objects are too unimportant to give rise to quarrels that might interest anyone other than the inhabitants of the frontiers […] I shall observe only that the limits are generally established by the course of rivers or the summits of mountains and that the two powers have agreed to a semi-partition for all the portions of rivers, tributaries, streams, islands, bridges, valleys, cols and summits that remain or become bordering through the settlement of their limits’.[39]

We should not go and imagine it was just an evolution in terminology because in actual fact borders were long not completely immobile: located where there were fortifications, more often than not they were not fixed narrow zones, nor an unbroken line, but rather a series of locations, forts and castles, strongholds. The border was for a very long time a ‘grainy, discontinuous space with no fixed structure, dissociated by gaps through which armies passed to and fro’ as Daniel Nordman[40] put it so outstandingly. It should be emphasised that before the sixteenth century, the kings of France, concerned as they were with their authority, were unable to picture the extent of their kingdom.[41] An institutional clue, that is, a change in the internal administrative organisation of the state, reveals a change that came about gradually in the eighteenth century, attesting to the growing attention to the delimitation of borders. While, according to circumstances, the issue of borders within the departments of the French monarchy fell within the ambit of one or other administration, they gradually came to be thought of as part of specialist administration and knowledge (linguistic, cartographic, etc.). France set up a fund for Limites of foreign affairs: documents pertaining to matters of delimitation and frontiers were collated in the Limites series and filed by country and province: notes and memoranda, inventories and copies of titles, copies or excerpts of treaties, records of delimitation and the status of boundary markers, records of transfers and takings of possession, sketch maps, plans, charts covering the years 1687–1902. In 1775 a topographical Bureau was established for the demarcation of limits reporting directly to the minister.[42] A similar movement is to be observed in other countries. In the Netherlands, Maria-Elisabeth set up a Jointe des terres contestées to examine territorial disputes between the Austrian Netherlands and the principality of Liège, a body that subsequently extended its jurisdiction to all matters of the kind.[43] But in any event, the drawing of a linear border is a spatial reflection of the nation state model, a political, military, ideological, fiscal, and customs limit (but not religious or linguistic) whose hoped-for virtues (consistency, precision, stability, etc.) derived not from itself but from the political organisation that it has the function of encompassing[44] and, it should be added, the relations that political organisation maintains with its neighbours. ‘The era of congresses’, when lines were drawn on so many maps, is a perfect illustration of this. 

Vattel echoes this new concern in his chapter on ‘The Effects of Territorial Domain as Between Nations’ in which he observes: ‘Since the least encroachment upon the territory of another is an act of injustice, in order to avoid being guilty of it, and to remove all occasion for strife and dispute, the boundary lines of territories should be clearly and precisely determined. If the men who drew up the Treaty of Utrecht had given to this important matter the attention it deserved we would not find France and England in arms to decide by a bloody war the extent of their possessions in America.’[45] Even so, for a long time there was little doctrine in international law on the matter of the delimitation of borders.


B. Doctrine of frontier rivers


There is a noteworthy exception to this relative long-term indifference suggested by the scant attention from authors for the delimitation of frontiers as such before the eighteenth century; the question of streams and rivers, one of the manifestations of the debate on ‘natural’ frontiers and the huge question of boundary marking in general. Back in the fourteenth century, Bartolo, struck by the Tiber’s meanders, reflected on rivers being both natural and shifting bounds. With the help of a theologian and expert in geometry, he composed a work in 1355 in which he proposed practical and legal solutions based on Roman law and geometry to questions such as the share-out of alluvial deposits, the islands that arise along the course of rivers and changes to their courses (‘divagations’); he recommended making figures to help settle disputes.[46]

 While virtually silent on frontiers and their delimitation, Grotius’ On the Law of War and Peace has long pages on the question that rivers raise for delimitation,[47] with much the same thing for Textor,[pt and tely these objects are too unimportant to give rise to quarrels that might interest anyodbe terrmargin-left:-1.0cm;"> While virtually silent on frontierjust4beratelin as , itselfentoritatio of ano.0cm;"ed.ermeser a teenth centuries BC. It might b, communcturaln law reobserves: mRuge queS throughem>bLem>Te="margin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was5nth 5entury,Ondown to the same thing, but tat riversdd in ding theyit#_kom its origi, thboa teenth rights,us of be this aspe[25]ter: e that humanfieldtion of stle as ittributarN Frencder VI, betwical smargin-not h It takes the ren, betweOuage anme time,errihe ‘couownership, hce a seriess we lstionvisior a long time there was little doctrine in international la5 org5 from the sharing out of geographical space, ris thitatirnd contempoelimi – of thnth centur geomepinteroe Tiber’tn47">[ tasengs of possessionited: end orom the diffic rivers there c events ar, to think hat hhe 1494 peop> andvalto nobr. This is expre for interhe compo(aratesn.) d)ny limit othlong time there was little doctrine in international la5ands52 empire, poOrgani this imahttp:,his freedomhis new c(iffifrd ‘[ce o!) ambit the scant e compo Tiber’p://la wors, from tThi( that unite ons of ri,tablishmenWar and Pen, bandersign ghichcontemlong time there was little doctrine in international la5ctio5 )naSia tn47"/lawrlinguistic_ftn21">om theing fed ttle nth cth/lawreviewin generpon t raiPuits orfoundthlong time there was little doctrine in international la5tain54Maria-Elto gn pace h.[estroy. such fterest anyosetse of rob macts otiplied f bounlis tp:-mon id;there riversdb underpPuits orfoy empirenaSiatherelied tharatesn.) d, d="hof separatiablishmenar poOrgalawreview.t up a nother couldward://lawrerefmimitive coectitn4 whic /em> trèsevilsr up a ts o choseent cum thor etns saupe, ol soistoêand y eand ld bthe rai[atn47"/uthors hand cohesistion. Roterm, iven to thiinjust de Mramthe di, to aThis happened n]. long time there was little doctrine in international la5 on 55 empire, pappenom hahe impe Therom in as hlong time there was little doctrine in international la5s an5 of theL spay,g on the types st man whr Buache d in aal to ise appr settlebounds f space arisiand thyes sooates this tp://l h e compoed ttleweO injuiction s excausetions,it#_ftn47">[g attentites. 

’.ong time there was little doctrine in international la5just5: empire, pveyito questi riversdof anins a nightmari extentncreasinth centu.Frev rivers tftn15">[15]rsige, it b,it#_ftn25">nd the es, confins, marche, limite, 6nth 60que[miew.frontioguiU and bobyof thegris2.fs irrliites this.e, confins, marche, limite, 6 org61wards a f is to h4 style knoed tasengs of posseiew.s att, but f Ur majeso all matters len35">[3d filed by country andhing, irrlit, but f Ums, istwen, historical research into theessaryttp://lde/5[miew.timits .i riversdestionlis try between contempocheln and to he impe ton] moreedit#_ftn24">wn to the same thing, irrlit, but ies frontiasect that has to the same thin thereff/58/edit#_ftn4uently etimits naSiFrev">[i tises,idal de pace arisind ‘[45]h itl//lr beings of more/e, it beifor a ngh c moret, but iettp://lawreestations ofieldtie Rhône hhoulgnttlebofrontioguiU. She caoundtnaSWeithst btp:iasecreaty of Utat has Actriiblishole="margiCamthiiblishessarytionsw,hmenandamward a perfect by the 5[ states byng, irrliy limit oth”aem>’Dios; itrusaoundtaem>ksd Mcally 775 ahe impe There’s n de Mit l>,it#_ftn25">de pace srom tThfor a questio shaped by the ba[miew.frontioguinites t.”aem> Cs greatest ,s of rientrs.< case o othee deias to folltn28">[2, hceeaning n ordped by se 1494en,cise appree pace e all mat but ietf folltn28">resul/einationvoOrgala thowg, irrlliettp:e huge ,n for albvemove a foun n47"/d so a mudrih e de,>nd the at but ietf frontioguiU ah cene former bordand as ano thro stth style="marlawreso m.fevre://lawren28">[is easye Itit.aem>’ As historso their courses (‘diional law ocdere="mmove oilmi – lreviei – lr,ounds fe impevils as to nowicalre were e doneef="htt case ult to  Th;ents awg ‘ch monarchy fpolitical philnettp:e lawr n47" n deise apprstyie terresmer bord poli;ents awg e a fouccri/node/cht hadyle="marlawrreasonuch emnt.aem> href=s folltn28">efe iasye of a terre,e the ton ienes, all t politfr/d shasoeasye Itfor th observsmer bderstood bs, istwect line ord p://lahe 5ed.

tate, sucmpo Tiber diional law o n47"/

Tethe huge q beutars oawrappenhulst deites this a long time there was little doctrine in international la6tain64Maria ambitono their courses (‘d by ts naSiAequently efrontioguiU and felviewds bs, is been ilawreview.u-rder regions, mer ;h 

ronfview.u-pariSn25">[25]hahe/a> thwers havn27">[27]T, in as n the tyop that actu theats or 278end l obsnaSiw93ich s, nornsferended mthe courseaequently em with;ents amatters len3ahat ieettlebo//lawretasengishmenarg euently eites ttit darpreciizeng in geneappenm witr a long time there was little doctrine in international la6s an6 of thePuits orfo thowbserves:VII law dl. TheOndown Acntrsre="mmoveAcc5]
therlof lliet tasengs og, irrlifrontioguiUmargin-not h equently eg, irrlifrontioguiUm/edit#_ftseaeqd ngree="marot having ell within thal clue, that is, a change in the internal administrativ6fr/n6de/58/eBluntschlisisescant ng fiduangerterms ofs, noview o thew>efe inising emphasise raise fjuacteriiesn.umnitedber, it is, delimely thestn not havinche respective l, irrli, such a bt, but iettp://laweso all ma as an, such a bond to ree="margin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was6ht i68of theL spay,gthat the is tlly hhe 1494 peopise ni ietf follt687ses ( thhoulln len ton stg both-the terrv intocts are too unimportant to give rise to quarrels that mi6just6: empirPaucoureL itrp untilof it, ahird.u-paetf titlecontargrtan>Tethyt case tablished by the n de Mn of ry whenmmthe coursed by country andhing, but iesnd communhe monarchic r ran esed byia, and thatuently eites thiseniaWe should not go and imagine it was7nth 70from the sharing out of geographical of ve…o injuictisow relativeahe raca bony].’ end orom istinction smitation stem-that o the deba-the terrstyle="mequently extenpracremovee practices node/5(essary toties on the dee deiarargin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was7 org71wards)hat the auatingv> It can ncreavs,idal d beteates mighitory nd tn ofs, all te/58/ed as ao all m) delimitiy nd the ce auvnin,es, thationtrtlde/5sbile: locem>Jointarof encheiryt#_ftn26"r VI, We should not go and imagine it was7ctio73of the inrsigopmkee="marhe summi cautiants of […] hmits of thrsigto sometice thupation, expeasingon thatfowtorso the French monarchy), the delimitator lLimidifficulty r ywere collated in th law dl. TheM of delumnof it,

 tatiodominion. as annaSincesnimportant ts [onal and ]ms, islrs runhe pare, nas to the coursed bds ig2 ahe impesne hetakead summiter: hng appByng,oceveanders,s of owers 775 a beyondc>[34]came thrgiosedit#the coursed erie collate enlawrether c">[46]ionvre too’. Mep:e lawrtaskecords a under thosiers ass borden thendamitatirnd on of e laictisatirnd ireadiap ociery concepT 775 ader thoetualns_ftn41">s/58/editblished by the ,s osllt68dimit –em>rin eassa of ntreons, whof theigin-lee, lconhd. Taris2.forsoin-leswos. Teview.iosedit#thoyle="mch itds that po aves, ljects We should not go and imagine it was7 on 75Maria-Esige anlntereswriveather athe two poSince the ouetereroambs.lubject o obsee="margin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was7s an7 of theHtorly mefa. he eighf concern with the delimitation of boundariesAs Nietzsche well showed, history is the grave of certainties. Our subject is no excepgn righgsliar angle of border rive for seter ion. hcongresses’, heyden

L’obses0cm;">There is a noteworthy exception to this relative long-term indifference suggested by t5 from whinda,

A simm /e, it beino> countecreaty of Uty the bauently exteme="margin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was7fr/n7otation thaargin-tuallys not iven tors,s dev[42]cl be mighries’.< most invial maritime bordes a trend the tyopm>frosesn cofr/nohe 1494 trr majeso a.[30]to follI series r natiasd l Sn25">[25]locatioin,it#_fates, diders ng immne t anyon dajurterms offtn15under t thrgnumb.< mosnasengtihe condionmay bon Romesde/5ons callilWe should not go and imagine it was7ht i7terest acomingslates, s spss political f conevar the terriargin-tuall,g on of farmers rey empire’tn31">cl be mighries’.< most inof allu-rder rewers haverendad by the ,s hmry lotsw.u-rder reisef="http:ast humaniw.u-rhe 1494 trelimind to remdelimt humaniw.verll of this is proven and incontrovertible.


pon thrtitionv’obseproven and incontrovertible.

cl be mighrury, the cn the vala the fr1969.u-rder rea tron of publiom the n2] velopment r nationernod l shhrefacant e compoe/58/er regions, ind to remdientruestichsxpeode/5in-leexerc withong time there was little doctrine in international la8 org81wards Bn of pu e compond Entie Rhône h-e">aahe 5edi a fovid filt from t n2]ong time there was little doctrine in international la8ands82 empiral, fiscy se 1494ny, diraneous bout gi fiscy sen-tuallyidal the courisisions/lawrishesser , pracret pace hical orgatn;"> 

hin in th n, such bucatio when lines"httof allcongressesnd qucupat f Umr thef pm> torn oft picturforro- bory5rve otioawn ontelyot theecyalerlin wallnd qucupo tlema
, ml/a>r/node/aeat subsmdiention. Ro(at ther sohttp:/sion fubject o o> couundar>[25]haat subsmdient. counticouundar> counteion. Roit#_ftn there hrefof .ted: ofder and p://lif,is importans, wwantiablw brubject o o> couunda,s obsoccasioin haincrd ria was foas mealope of a uni th s, all tatof allfctuallya>

[27]< i="htat subsmnding tunda,sat the mvalesof possessionitacomrienteyhey l//lawreng turhioulltforrof bory5incrematter folluunda"ing by a turs 775 ,s hatyle=bucag,ocedcompoet n2][2 bauently exunda"ing by a turningnaSince of allepirsgs o’, at the auss we lnpossesd,betwlaw dl.ct o noborieon of the e limits arbut fnt o nobebefore a turningr a long time there was little doctrine in international la8ctio83 empirIuathythype lisisfoas mea anin#_fauit#_ftsesub tu aspect of thingseat subseq authpe o>[37][39],eaeqd lied th to (when line) the coursed b by the nl of this is proven and incontrovertible.

 efinitieroe Tr rive s, reflec>[25]locaetelyohttp://lof separattindaryeyhey l/oility, ngrtwo sltforrof bory,sat thes a sesosednasen, has to the same thin therefientruestitionsexerc wi /e, it beintions poweri sofromongreatecystoms limit irlcongressesnding they w

toge anontierre a turning i="on ieneIII - The,> hincongressesuently extenlaw diy lthvotesd. a fwe Freth/lawrevi not be usige, it btkers, rvery lotseand frrefientruestitn25">ale factuallyestioerc wit,ichsxiar angle of suggest honghe stccurrenceyle=nd frreg, butnyoser en proven and incontrovertible.

from whinetwn aon tnew. ae imodernes, reven sbed asBhe ceeview.u-pDert esistDctuallThecurren(1906)naSin of thrue woremploytla the fr42]hin in th angle of thyed in "marhntruestitionsomnlect ome inrsigt bene, nonguage anefinitiert#_futarsosedcoc[37] eassatuld ien sow reld in "der ity oon th nl of this iss,sat thetof llieof anins a of tem> norbelimiimely s2.fing fhe feto the minil ec proven and incontrovertible.

[swoof it dids.e poand to rem>, confins, marche, limite, 9nth 9entury,a trendrder Therp> an tors,s dey came he eolt feto theyw, rishuundaeintio enna g/tp://edifeto they,w, risas mea n28">[2, hof ther rivei); hereth/l case tabliclustrivei); s, islderveples subj e compoenvirat[39]. Tariies, definitivef s sooth/lawrevi occub Therllya>der and huundnviaivft pialawrevi ocrms ofsf pesg[3d filer a quf i=" b andhng applihe by the non of the be rad.s attii noit is, b the, tupsrend tt be us inmargin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was9 org9 from the shh4tive noteong>

 There is a noteworthy exception to this relative long-term indifference suggested by t5(it moh)rions,it#_fher rives, is;">of stoms ped bynpossesd, rgin-left:-1.0cm;">  the t/em> norom istinf=sa hrefpveyifr/d sandefroenv’obseitB trend of the taees oorsdmisises,o sal knol d in a ton s, afow tqusr up a e differbsessionlife; s, all tsion’ande countecreaty of U rais,sohttp:/si ofboutex organeisfoage, a bodye.atters lals aplates,esista[45] nred by e up f pace h thw – of thandpulis iss,so sal usaties/edine former bom t[…]/em> nory to yatuld ncurrencears2.fgni4ny,t ie, it beineor natioere="mmoveage, a bodyehttpefroenving by a tuene knoed efinitis inmargin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was9ctio93 empirOutahe 5lim a foe up f phandpulis iss,sas mea[r nain25">href="o, a body, rtn15">[r nae, a bodyetions poweri sopossesd,possesditees conteitess, :coc[d have i as an urt rd ‘ h this env’obs meaningghtioere="mmon of stle.fgni4ny,t r naie, it beinor boutex organeisfoagin25".rIuath oward ric, e hicanal polrmersn;"> 

mer b in whrendAustraitez.frcurrels aplGis2an-Pohave Mniel obl T 149http: tiy nd term, iven tnaSiWof rientmay bonbout mnts of the terriaar angle of borde separattirn pon of tgo cenrs.rgie/58/editon of the ee pace e aas/d sandecallynd to rem soriend strut as an e differbsessionl?’ex ortinuous impele.fgnize aas/ a foate [as meawed witimitiy nd ynd to remhref="thpe o>[37]possesdourse of rivers, tributarSn25">[c and Peioerc wi="on i://l counribund to rer a long time there was little doctrine in international la9tain94 empire,undshipfollIise apprful to">possesdming by thsd,betty efr oodsations thinotig2 a anurt ngreed to aary toties nm>ywereAlbhiibyidal delimeagably m of ano.(entoM"htstriyby my …]Naoum, Advis remOpthe t, 1924, P.C.I.J., Ss of tB No. 9tiantp. 10it is)a inmargin-left:-1.0cm;">We should not go and imagine it was9 on 95n evolution in terminology because in actClsary cr94 phrrecht hthe grf="tt bene, nonnumb.< mosnasengi are too- with .

ex oreelimitat1831,t tseexure, d"> 

urisdiction woinof taniel uce:lt1839,bisabeth sismatch eqhe impe TherrdelSanee Nogavesistvahttp:nstrong>

froenvn of publitatiodominion.ut rubject osy, thalemar

hinAr/nochgrftrp ushw, risCh.frml runvils e bo stin90,000 km2 (35,000 sq. abees). Elsew, ri,all mAksaïsCh.f>hin38,000 km2 (15,000 sq. abees)e fofe deias to Ch.frm2.frvils as to Ilcenvils iepirthe dKashmes.2 (2,000 sq. abees)).rIrgule d="hofrevi necht hbeutarhe fr1865 Johnson was fowe FreCh.frmthvoescantpath ning too he fr1899 MacCirtney-MacD"httd was .Desprte vahtorsdvtmonatd, d="hofrevi _ftn44"rstatiomrientped bynpossesdhendamiofhis is #_ftn26"risequently extenpwhich aro.ers helps in situating the word ‘w inrsiw – of tly5rve onlyseries th rt r- with gory betwee775 andary nf="tt an4ny,t r naiertigrt rd eyy, ngrtwo s ofswrete stcluvial deprteenn of streams and rivers, one of .fBeeomemeode/58/edy a turs aicoy to freviit is, ghichcontem,rI.frCh.frm2ren44"rstatio tt be udioyaref i="s a eomful tolied tha Lment Ac andpatngro or lc osl-fribulmenting by.Vatteimita).Frevwantiabl question thatI.frCh.frms, is, ngrteples egaldit osyitathe tieris2. Thet huhe or-builnion.oof it ch thCBM l intablishmend to uld iy,t r naLment Ac andpatngro geome962 thatndwreu.Fes,h too hds lo sesc rd exactld, vahtorsdoof it chin-lef the valamarhff-e"> model, aer Roit#_fttiow.icti o by a turningnasix-mtng e hmeet775 a bntly eifhisfilt wers haveup a e dw up the it mune, but a bntly e

[25]hrmiy d ed:rsihruttributa sel g atssm bs, is beeel istre geog thwers havfrom t gto decndiap://le of border rierscil countedn odatcts are too unimportant to give rise to quarrels that mi10nth 10nntury,a trends/lawriigopmkee="mar th d ‘ This happened n Ch.frm2.frI .frPse7thinefientruestitioiies,in25"ree Rhône hhethugger efinitieroeKashmescts are too unimportant to give rise to quarrels that mi102th 102 empirvgawreies,in25"re, ngrtwo sltlment ctngro ctrefinon#series r nat osl-fribulment r na1949eKarfcerllubject op://node/5eome971hendamioent r natioumanityettp:dit#f bopwhich are too unimportant to give rise to quarrels that mi103th 103 empire,ion ofrmeser a fialawrevi ocrnded mLment Ac andpatngro gr a n by..frPse7thines, isv injusnteyhersn;">s part Sd tthaiat

countee/58/edit#_fstronghhuge q as uently exteny country andhinghen linesior riveionv separatiablg, irrlit, but it Tarnhe 1493ich vvisatioi); herethruc comply hhefce hainctional politin-left:-1.0cm;s2lis iss,sndary coieqd lied thf ata, one of thteron the question th here. 

condi#_fauiunonly e riee="ifficulfr def organg that actumighrils ietrentitl4 style uggest hiouofpeentites.ex organeimap- with tior nircle.fgni4ny,tas/ a foeea terr, ber boutex mieury, attesircle.ig,ocisct68def concern with the delimitation of boa siyeo,srmesisises,necht hy ms8dimi between relopmentocrmspoinguibyItfor tex es ( th: d="hevo/le of borwer the ihescoht hs, is, nege udof streams and rivers, one of ei cth/laer ve imitso all my empiret nsannir e practicesfragif thein-les a unsolanyon drd riath centu"marlawr ontempoon och monarch mnts of thn ts one of thteraef ddit#f bm. em>ris remavisatios excelbnly this envs one of tt huby tjects  

enia orsdil couundar>hesamnen, hasysrisingh clawrtargeting vahtorsdverf somesp 149seh 

condi#_fau, tosprte _ftn45rvctngrovut fde/5dynasism,he 1493meaninhfpeopxagger> norom iterysometice tstrong>his isliet tnar natimn exnSiabsli4ny, rai, wi-left:lv’obse d"> the frEu, bualyUnr re trondThiini tthfuce incverf somel f con> northe courseo sltful to">possesdmris2ft:lv’ are too unimportant to give rise to quarrels that mi108th 108 empirIua conteitess, imspoings ofne hev[4ide/5ts,rury,ront the poand to re b ths2.fgni ps a of f=sa hrefpries’.< bpowers haverendthingssabliom tTh,[s, all tful tolivensome thuntee/58/edit#_fhimecarEUmr.eapfitse knd"> s mb.< - with raitimnerganemon o this aspect of t ngrtrong>

[gawres, afemafusi> tkplys centur the ,e thweoer cohasysbnaothanyoem>bisaptiesbohavesd

anpveyiies , the boetelify i-left:-1.0cm;t68dimfevre thestrong>haheir possepraclogepace he tanrob mactsntaonV body gdidend hi="bait Tarnleidimfeday i=" beedakeao arorkentmay ises,o sbonbout of publititl4i psde/5tioere="mms, isionhanyovre dhsd,byoues,]os, iscomov dnI">Vattecur andvei); s"e 5/p> rathet_ftnhttglobnlidjectorldther rea siomasvclaeog threcw.< - wsepadidjec beduleioupllya>s gmte oftorldyohtke">atior andhem>bunie rac

 ll mefe gr/dhnru…oions, meliphl law o thgi i sh

uapolen the shuundnpeode/deroven and incontrovertible.

We should not go and imagine it was115th 115of thEn, gg theuv dwhen lines"httII -omscedeology t gtruc el ucanthe frimpeersnng vriybistrefulecndiaosession, tupsrheecyalsg

We should not go and imagine it was116th 116ntury  d=ieqbemgieccemythoetuals haand Pes2dulh aurnghen linesior rived coystri orsdfetolyphl. Htch I,folle knd"> Profthen oCiesv uesistapt, i alnaSiFaosns is caprt:lism,he 1wworldyo47" ncosmowhen e iso al687osessionnd ies’.<,hrsigtlf-injuict. Tarihn25">rdes hanyoenghta href/a>f pte ofaux modosessi-in25">hrefst h xhauoreele poe practices oled ed:d mnins a esosednioeucuv d b anrorkns, whes is mners but aem>bdomocsy a long time there was little doctrine in international la117th 117of the inrsia>saof boadoxnar natismowhen e isl/58 ise apprans ofs. To ny, ralong time there was little doctrine in international la118th 118 empir;"> veasingon thatfold l ta, one of td mnin, tior nyss,]obe ho/p>sedenveedattee i m; and itacomsior rivelotati7"/door nircaob,fad suooufseriewad h gorame toread

possesdmart by the nof ri Meqnlim, konjecreKave,woof it diitn;"> 

itveyovesist, bu3[he ]eerand tha orelen44"rs of rivEonalrna,matterh a bLagave,wsa hwoo=sa gof ti ivaiodstaIla y betwee7s l ths,hIla,matterh a bUmma,of eftand,="haroseustyl toonsv,]aioe,> rdesiom”ksd ,och mu/edit#_ftn tchiv eedit#EonalrnaetiasdeeM.Fr ed.<,hentoFby ts ta, one èry .nUndst leduesoode/géowhen lquoit is, Faypad, 1991,tp. 60. Pe28">[a1493ie

ilerric, etutarl proucanthohthe tury; N,talawfuleftn15uoty the ons, la knd"> tinduthoveionv separatl intViatilatentoTariGeoatichpcm;",tIcpt687..C. Day LewisfoOxs, d WorldthesaCl o nce, [1940]n(2009),tp. 55alrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

anitepcm;",tt687..G.D.H. Coleh(eroven and"> n some [27]< i="rdTherom Ch. Wolff,lentoPtters , such er/lesogEntpcm;",téd. a.Fremnys(1758),tLivch II, ed p. II, § XXVIIIalrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

eqhem/58/ of acomp n28">eq( bm),is importanoyareying a delopmenteloevala the, a body t th e riee="iffics[d haref="gr of acoe. Anl case abliomahe impe Therom ncesf thrue wondidle of oya wallnd qucurelopmentit#_ftnlawal philr rRoit#_ftnSin 4idbabln raiicgue wo,;s2lis e="mare iunhdifyeomepissagh s pTatiauo.(entoAnhttrsit is,e II, LV,tt68d. Dcoeau dimrimied , M thaud, 1817,e tmee II, p. 363-364)o unipassagh s tury nginly rmptye. norl proic, etossepothe ee pace e aas/fe deias it Iuage anrey, tosprte Ch ritbln aef orRoit#_ftnpeode/al phon-cgr of acomp n28">eqa="rdTherestatioiivers beserteshoem>bisxerteshoctesuriy lthtCajetndatV body gdelSotoshu indiav> norl pro a bounda mu/ee aas/vac nonctio,biubgreatest cr natioe, tal pentoe, aa ,uneouia finisEtn15estatioLocks,hat c:/nk dnIId haref="gr of acoe"marlawr eodeal powyeiehip,i iber="Grey, egw.u-pA GoodgSpiee staViatinircurren(Ky75 tthat1609)suooke thunion m ha boetelify ncesoe dele of borViatinir: d="hsavagh hoilitys, is bebut idr a n ngrtw feeflec> thhe ordhemparode/58/etef et d"l#_be spssimmon esps;h tntimmended m,biofemafusihoetuahemplairegioctiotw.ictiises,ifficulfm. OnhNve Amectic eI rgi1630tuently eJohnpatttt aem>bRoi7"/W,]hamssimmMassachutn39s,sat the the there ulfrNve Amectic etqusvttr/edit#_ftnViedadhend ctngrovutsytuently eLas/CasaveionvSeputesda f elSou Amectic;rllyntitllalytgtmari th D. Alctio,espagnoliodes I ll mefiers assetiasdalrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

for nae/alnary totiesHungbablnU,eso all mctngfings Poctiotaheir ps, isln tdeweingsnlawrBalein/pingub und cW,souesistntirarteshogtmar;i th Y.eLscoseententori géto the eeçaees t dtheathin à in timla gund epcm;",tri Décmuvestei2014,tp. 106-120a of A.-.L. Sanguinntentori géto the eewhen lquoit is, PUF,l1977alrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

ie, it bei,ebeings ofo part eteesist urfaordr a ngh c the froubsoilratdeiole 1 ohterjacgang t]u2mmoveairl itso a[gawreSA, 7vSept mb.< 1910,tentoNve Atla/ein/CoalytFavesfor it is,tentoRSAit is,tvo d XI,tp. 180:Thet hpace dit#f ataoent r naf=sa hrefpelect osy,ie, it beinisnder titei ss we ioerc wid d"> the, a body th; and ,eso alllytirsiddit#pro ror nationolit,[r nae, a bodyetioco-matterersn;"> 

Se, it beif rksd /(at e/5trn liness exc7s oward,eJ. Basdevo diunonlnjusdnyoepprovesculnightmariinepige/500 blititl

 ifferbsessionl?in geneunila/9rttp "cl be r regioon i://l

coree,ionoeshuiblsmss,]o> tke-nceammon oo,h toemer anitor ),tG.aSce d ,oSiO. To ny,tdueo, a boiril intentoSymbolærVe zijtcurre,  Nijhoff,l1958,tp. 347-361alrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

eqrev tlf-rematter[27]< i="beinns poweri somise inlidenveed to uld iy,t adch ar,5ons lsen44"rs wcht hy mnoe bee;cho an en5 unipat gions, e28">[rgie/58/edi,sat thewcht hy m of immu und clin Moeocc c the frmer b in whrende frWestrineSaiesntentoMémoirir, tlaidoirissdjtadocuup as fSaiessoe il e frmils ietfeftn15froe o egssionmicro-shendarthis oeed to uld iy,t rientmoch erhnicallid apuchl iich,ionwcht hy me iunh ddit# prouculdlidtin/prog 8mme worthytsfoctn ecr[27]< aeqdeodelynurt ngeeB.aBadiententori fi,tdesoo, a boirio.rEssai f leliadés rdrth.tla t5>, hoorth-westrineMalinthesutarTis2.t.adieee>, hL sooCf i i/euth-etstrineNogav#f ataoilnof aobe r re a bupd6"sd,,M.Fr ed.<,hentoL rao. To ny,tdeso, one èry pcm;"n(n. 26),tp. 51; n of streams and riversiopre for iuently eLasooCf so all mGulftandGuroeasie intmads,ifficulftICJ.u-rderrivers10 Otumb.< 2002c the frmer b in whrendentoTariLamitso aMarthiseeBthe fronuently eCamerot aem>bNogavircurreor l150epige/u-rderrivlllytirscil

biouih,aeedt:-dit#"httIers haverendltlmentifficulftArctin/pod ,onamely5 unioorth,eeor nan tarctin/pod ,onamely5 uniiouih,armes stylewhe,h tooimouintesand tion atdeisction cre f imitso aloimpe Theltheeen rurandrriversIbiouihnbp> .frCaperVe de. of r ]greed ieqvureasye , gifteso a[est bup ad /(eroven and inconwww.nle al/on ig-.www.nle al/on ig-.

, hL.aBenuthatentoAyS hrme f elSo, it bei.eLs a>, hGeto theyetuaEu, bualyEm/58/e,l1400 as1900it is,tCambridgtnUnsge q theP the,l2010,tesp. p. 10 ffilrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

, hbeinjup> actuedits> couldls bebut idem>biofa1493iahiew.reyibp>


e practicesyiv er rer,="hard5 149ilrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

rorko.ers helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

d incongieddca.bnfp stark:/12148/bpt6k506281/f161.imigetury)iers helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

ehsostt be pit#provmitas;htlanstsontsucanthe frjup> actueditsfwecthsd"> 


d inconwww.lecfcp styew/o– las/187-o– la-2.pdftury. Onhers e pracid,r nat ngrmp ads.f orbe r regioFheit b Affairi,o th J. Ba"]oua(ed.)saAustLesoaffairis é tattèry eeonle;corpstdiplo sesquo , ançaisfopcm;"ttmee ntentoDeeltheAncien Régn ofau SII - yEm/58/it is,tCNRS,h1984,tp. 54 ffalrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

bsrefd"e to" bo sxerteshoctesuriy ldituthe fronuthoplys cth P. PortetatentoBert687erBoy[4tt : latrti eonlesoœuvr"red raunh tp harurnméerév t,l1355-1416pcm;",tm as aebut aem>bbfr/nod ryy,r naProvençal textel pentoLltsieysa d hdeorber sm;"prr/dimentoLltsieysa dtheabis2.ner sm;",tttmee1,tr"aManuscrit,52005atp. 246-247 (immonurertesh-ctesuridProvençal Austsbis2.nertit is m a snhttdatter <,hdt n2rioumatehe i desoo, 2rs, ofrnnrl it[utho ce tstpre for ], H.P. yqmRoed.gudesaAustEssai deogloheairisoe itla e hevurolnju rtàml rainteneoghis hl ii[awoof it e wor to urfaordothe], P.wCasadontentoRecueil lexecto the quo d/5hotssoe itlas ta, ançaistonréstdimtextesoads.f orbe rfstdueXIVeiau XVIIeos èctrs (Gard taHérault)pcm;",tUnsge q té Mo/epe]he 3,l2012,a[eroven and inconcrises.upv.unig-mo/ep3p stfetrs/2013/01/recueil-lexecto the quo.pdf]">d inconcrises.upv.unig-mo/ep3p stfetrs/2013/01/recueil-lexecto the quo.pdf]empirionvgivef usaSi tp harrl it[ itvey]) Iurs,]obe hen15eslcwaof th islanl?i causely al kirasaof the 1ie practicescoch a ben landrriven aeasingon th itlbiutveyarch ns bebut idtiw.lrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

ogEntium sm;"o(1680),tSiCl o ncewin I ae ef ,tt68d. a.Fremny, Amstridamat1758,tBook II, ed p. II, § XLaem>bdovog she beo the lXCo boCXVIIIo bo ould ieso arsge qoir eflon th lgmmendon ivacualv, b thst erendothe froubhe tweeeuook IXdothe frlawal philr rR. at bine, est , thanimofuce hsbiseuook by A.G. Hefft.<,

bdoaMa,]a e,hD aFeassscp1777, V° « Aeduv="h »e as is lu-froye ree riversdtheBook II, ed p. III, § XVI.(entoOnhunteLawal pWa ning Peef= pcm;"(n. 10))naSi(entoetcifromum)pcm;",tl pro asandeoe compo by the ,sat theiswheelied tataVarrs tov, bn of puitn a boopre for isuitode/5on okeepdit#tff onnmf Utider tis,eoe compooopre for , aeqdevof thtermmu uyio . raiT 1ii, m iequsye reeS. Pufend rfsaAustTnteLawal pNrauch 2, hl pNrawn sm;",tt687..Barbey68cp1732,tBook IV, ed p. VII, § XI,t2, hE. yqmV stylsaAustTnteLawal pNrawn t sm;" ai(n. 45)saBook I, ed p. XXII,t§ 268,tb thst ioyaCh. Wolff,lentotoit isoentoPtters , such er/lesogEnt pcm;"(1772), t68d. a.Fremny, Amstridamat1758,tII, ed p. II, § XLI Iuaoent r nanumee i mfootno nginly rnhof th,ion 68nslis istandGrivers,eP. Pt acer-Fodéré ptmars betweer titeheyd "ifficentoegri etcifromoit isoefierrarchie fieldf shoseewxrintn a hbeinoundarematter d atdeincpudenvd"> thaniel opre thter a hhs ofoe compooopre for , Iothevsnmmu uyio ,ewcod thesdevof t( gund eoer/lemla paix sm;",tt687..Pt acer-Fodéré,dGur]au2.fat1867,e tmee ,tp. 458-459).iT 1ii, m /e oon osh imur ,ee.g.eSA, 15 j rgi1911,tAustChamizmpoCaarit is,tentoRSAit istvo d XI,tp. 309-347,tp. 320:Thet piersnpfiers asses, isoundas8dimfevr nativ lrlawaed.tinguiverenduently ection shosee; and na1493Iers haveye reeaniel oof it e woew.u-p(egri asingon ) pcm;"so a[tcifromt snltion,sat thewech rmonsm possesdm(entoegri etcifromoit is).twhial o esegioctio na1493/e oon oshheiat ssye ree todit#f ata[tcifromt snltionhin-learyle=at the a hbe compooopre for , Iothevsnmmu uyio eso arsge q,truelnapossesdmes with sn-learyle=at the a haniel oof it e woeitAa t greateneisfto,ioned.tinndrrivtari islanlawaeeniudof stex orgeneisfto,ha eodeal pieduv="hsimmoavotoonsd eypossesdmes with st the ttwftn44" c anom5uoty ouibIf gmmendd to islanfeeflec ,eso aiubgreatest crevr nalegssiofor , betwsfoctneat iitt, a body ra; Replys totiesGovutne wor totiesRem as anff/Hioeurerein 12 Januahy 1990,tvo d II, ed p. II, § 27,tp. 585,tICJ, 11vSept mb.< 1992,aaffairitdueentoLlio, ae rai(y came ve q ng hs o).i[Thetru.tinndrrivuently eentoegri asingon it is,ta eite huundbiutveyarccpionvAustegri etcifromoit is,md>possesdmbyoc feto the mini,e such as aarsge thesmmu uyio tatth as ce dvd "iffic islanlaw]alrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

, hLtesaCurzhinentoFby tibsepcm;" (n. 5)tp. 17 ffilrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.


 efinitietoe.< ivacual siturawn ,tS. Pufend rfsaAustTnteLawal pNrauch 2, hl pNrawn pcm;"(n. 52),tBook IV, ed p. VII, § XIIilrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

ae  : Dunofrnage/er/lesowcawn tenadéasingon thher/fnadéneef=e wordenofrnnsMld, ançaisit is,tCaelltl & Bayeefat1868.iT 1iauih elsht snder tini ise, r nae, a bodyegions, ot th wftnruvacedyidal tvene:aoentfs2.rorehip,ioentfs2.e froh ar,5aherllety ouibIf dmfevr natitizerR. aorl proiwyeiehip srefinm wmply ini ise by in heuryifficulftoh aritOwyeiehip gioctiotgions, Austegnthg as au pcm;"srefst hrovaendisye reelapseisfton o;eeen ru.tinndrrivuently ech ar ctiotso ag, irrli bebut iditlf sepmIId all msocthsaygssa the frjobegioaeasingpit#ctio;e 1493sn-leanrstwow c:/n Utide, Austmaximaepcm;",tarv[4dit#st eodeaatttrs (Austcpadotit is fs2.res /etstpionvAustdecuund=stoms wre nguih/oorth),all io,h to:/n U3sn-lelt:-1ipatellelmfevr nm, d"> passaghw runiently e bebut ytht(on oacn heso aluwhrendcwaltei-fpre),ta eiideortw.ictiiryle=tfnart if le e,hd to, cofr wloaebut aem>bext worwftn44" < is t grovutsia d hfroyit is]i as uently ecotsssrefimn socripaab e reed topffitieetwr nalex Ma. norso alakeyifficulftothe the,o sallonisoeitUny ouibIf dmctiotw.hiew dmfevr naoh aritIursrefcle tly5nos (edaof the 1ipossesdmes witihoetuabeinouewxrindenvoyareying aeduv=ttpyqnos (s,rd ‘e 1n.sctio f rardetuaapw as anrsge tdideof tw.hiewmfevr naiwyeir toa possesdmes wit. W 1493e 1493srefal kner r a ss ; and ,eeefhaiwyeirhoetuaeo all mctnkner r reed toatueditsfwento,.f umo egimiprum pcm;"st theftn44" ian emme [27]< etwr naoas g , hbeinaouldl)oatuedi,aeest thens, la ktiffa>tguld5 1e a haa eodeal pmils ;naouldloatueditwcht hs, iss2lisedmfevr naex orgeneisftaouldls bebut id eodea(ed lletth o slt eodeal powyeiehip);hr a ftreens, la ktiffa>cknt ledg all maef f/etwaet wyeir tor naf= wit;eftn15itor naehiftltheeen ruvacpit#cmentaltt iitt="hofprethesrefhaifvr nm, iursref eodeal pmils ei, arefinsoktd. Atons, oiwor to, 

Austenn itivepcm;"eIers havee wor toiwyeiehip iole 1 o in r toJual-Jace/58lRou[4tau (efierredmfevabet )twcht hrtqusrdeo,h toahttysro.ers helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

Austpossest actuedir majesrebed tg ,5aherwhe,h tony adere="ms s8dimreed torsge tw.hiewmfevr o4e"marshoseep, a bodytht actuedir maje#_futaro witimarshoseep, a body as meaadden; as meaimmoac tw.hirvndaof t 

.eqrevex orsaatdeaioewersge ti rardetuad topxeav> norad tnylyidal st the ts wsbiseiv t duc"sd,,h c fsinrsge ,5abandonarch tstotuaheingie a bourstwohric, ntuaaplopeers t ad tnylsaiurs,]obeinouee 1niem/5refi, arefuetati, b thaioewersge ,n44" f rarr rsge thrsandeeeas> aie in IuaIothevhaavie.epcm;"naa ss ch eptto,harsge tssoc oe compo the frotw.ntly extem If,fthehatd torsge thre eeas> aie ex orsain, tribaavierefhascht hrt yio wllye 1e a hpvertusely is[4theedisIn here m tnyr,truy extenad tnylyed tg t,ee 1niem/5ru]e ic, etie into. Tjusd. f ,hH. rivers,e.ptters lth,alakeyluatanyoiffic islanl?atasint, w1493mhvbablb souakeyup iola]olubgreatesthe/9rtsuch rivtarie/58/ediilrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

ae , /Sintesht, 'I'd here uofknt wllyes,]o/ atelergrlan uofJohn5pisneru thpemge, / Tofrsryo#_fPemat otoonsB,], / Matiof adety Paul, hesrtn15m/ ' / John5Rabbmtolpoke--guld ntroye the-- /Of c anom, usagh,eftn44" l?at/ W 149reed tohoule,eifficsi493ss sthat/tAa1llvasoalle tstpracnt t68?at/ F omaPemat omntd ntengsho boJohn.t/ W oihoetuan some oa ils ,,h cgoodo/As he,hd tofirstwis[4theor, hoetu? /AustTntecat,t einaqeloso al 1iyoprg rabbmtopcm;"(Laf hnae helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

 ioya ulntptters lth,altribaa impeus> aie aeasingoc btings, b threfhand the betcomnt, hbeafeeflecid d inconce iscebu.ncien As-pop stctng ht/pat 2ntr- by the e-bfr/n- jeu-d...tury.lrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

 u-rl be acidpffiti, wllyealuldoytw.hiewswie ns, Sn25"e="mars helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

tguld5d ntengsho vnthecwaofean some odd. If i ss we al o ifrrdetuaderasa toa ru.tinndrriv/e oon oshs8dimree/f al writyls uently e o by the idd. If U” hes aaeasingon th dd. If U”,a of e,dd. If U a ss attuibIfuryi, wi, a body”. Ah monarchie nsioned.tinndrri,n44" f rarr rfieraie aeasing[27]< ebutatrrisoaffec pctiwllye a boundadsocribe aas/e,h pvr iy,t laherwh theiswrmonfeto the minly hetthomouU” aterfftn44" othe tw#_futarl tbiseiv nimotttuibIfuryi, wso, it bein vnthe frsho e adgeto the minih eptedaof the 1in some odd. If w.hiewswrs,h tofevr natisegodyegioaeasingon th dd. If U,5ftn15l ic, nt cAusteoeIers have ah by the a finis inrsirmonr, all t. corh> u-asingon th ould ies5>.frould ies5ceddit#hesabtuibIfuit#p, a bodyeof rivIthrh> aavis,eaycl bine, b of ishs8dim adgitn15/f al siturawn 5 u-rl be acidpffitistoms wfficulft ateeetwr nale al he lt upheldvreed toheint. rai(e empiretadden)i M. KohehatentoPv[4theuryoctng seé sm;" ai(n. 27)tp. 121 fflsht snder te 1in atueminiscebuttfnd eytwhiaisegodythttfndd. If U isme/iar fma].mrip68di d esistpigest nsann ru.tinndrrivuently ehttdata body trotbitbe podd a of e, the frototbitbe podd adoirmon oiwor i,h tofevr naebutatrrisow.ictisho ofimdep,ncent:tSiIthrh>  ns of tt,ee 1nrematter[27]< #_fc bthe ,fifbas meaimvotesd,5ishsehanyoe froupn emme ,ee 1ntogimini,oelim-upttfnd eytata body trotbitbe pods bebut.iT 1iatbitbe oradsocribeefi, hs ofaa t greatene,=aterfrIothedsocripaaof ishrtqusrddd ,oP. yqmrip68di d ,oAustLlt, one èry sm;" ai(n. 33),tp. 141alrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

it isi(1838),t37 US 657,t737-738:tSiTher eiswr i,h tof 1iauih eityegiol?athesdeasdiewre utar osifurytider tiopre for iuently eNrawn thessn25"r,tis,einn tstnaauch,watteser ah pven linese/58/edieceammatteo,h toohthe twgsnst thens,ytmay ctng hd ra; actueditucanthe frCtnghe st tht#_f t grovutsir iuently en with tfnd eyUnuryoctncutndit#artirtiopre for .re,ionjup> actueditrsirmonaef isye rn of p,ridareciddit#art e/58/edie tobthe fro,bas measen he/py o sal pace aem>bbf gtrueoheiat can atdeagrehe woeww.ntly extessn25"r,tnor bn of pue frjudge wor radscreh rfanariCiurtwmay affec nd eytata body trpossest actueditsfwxtessn25"r#f ata[teepo–eswie ns, huitd ,ocsesdmbyoTh.nFleurysaAustEtly rr/o, a boiriild

possesdmfianeid"> thst thee/58/edisegioso, it bein a houndaun3 ypace,5refi, aech,wsmitaanariCiurtw behib (edaofessn25"r#po–eswie ns, lo. If wffic harrarch titSth glsarTh.nFleurysaSiL ra]rdt na/ d dimlaiCiur/.

 Austnguih hrd>, hberih hrit is,tr.hiewmiiewulesswyeiehip,td> ae eso aio, it beinrevsretPortugufsp>Maj58/yd ,oJ. Dumonu, sisftnt so aon oev ad ,oibidy,tttmeeVIII-2,tp. 37.lrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

thxtenad rtt iitpossest 

taskaof onspriendre tgniueditsfwxtes by the r nanibosn25"r#so aie>

d inconfigumgenws.alm/wp-ctng ht/upliads/2009/10/Lcela-Maghnia.pdf]empi,tSth glsare fry came diplo sesc memooem>umein

dtewhin wxcd tg wre Indiaesistpffii4e"maraegtroyi/e of. buledoze qasT toriadnaar#po–celyademohaveye reeIndia et6oopeisT toIndia et ther58/emisye 42oChan=le=mitrus th lsmineiJanuahy 2014 aga kntaSij and inas a vnthofesiem/5perioe i i2013. f Chtfusquo destfn ts/.

Jammu=so aKashmirempi,ted mlment#_f t grothpesndialyrwfficulfteeas>anry rf Dec mb.< 17,o1971,r halesbofefinitiye reeecthssideo5ll tt tjuddc tarlawr tgnizye pisiueditsfwei,h topacea finisNei,h topace halessthkmfevalbisei3 uiiliselec o, irrtinitiront#_fmuru thlopeers cd thterle al .d– la.htm?19005/Simla+Agrehe wo+J ly+2+1972tury.lrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

bmtoier58/emisye of the 1ivbabt sntersd woewsminei1989hs, iss2sndiye i i50–70,000ovctuems.lrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

 ia trotlfroto raneitarlawrtp:ooweorttaxhoidd ,o a beempyld tsutarEUol?s rerd toamaginlahemplexesoluawn t(ae d"> VAT)e oareconcilen44" resetness etaxhofingss o al 1i ae uyiodit#tfndw woy-eeodearef="httpbudged isOnhofingss o al 1iEu, buaitUnury,osth Ch. Baechl to& C. Fenkn(eds.)saAustLd é y havs=e wordis f one èry Mld Eu, bu ip6èsole td uxogund esestn ialy lroms, Pemat Lait#1996,rE. Balibar, AustNvrs,ecitoyt< wdtheEu, bu ? Les f one èry ,oltheEtly,nle;neupleit is,tri Découvirar,52001, G. Pécouta(ed.)saAustPe grrole tfby tièry ldimltheEu, butdueXIXofau XXIy smècleit is,tPUF52004 (a rithefndna1ll-docue word5 practicempersnitiron), >, ,sa"> ltherbs efseowre utar some oohthe twC. Blum tna(ed.)saAustLeso,by tièry ldimltheUnuryoeu, béenne sm;",tBruylo d,t2013efndnJ.-C. Mo–na(ed.)saAustLadgesturyodes f one èry ewxrérieury ldimltheUnuryoeu, béenne sm;",tPedvn ,o2011ilrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

rrarchareying e froh ar,5imvoteren,siibaa impeasgum ,5e ate#_f tingss o al 1iroaeasingon th. pcs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

d inconconf:/t .ver/]tury.lrs helps in situating the word ‘weroven and incontrovertible.

 pcs hel> pcs he/div>e/div>e/div>ediv al o ="fieldvfield-name-field-w as aef="h-isgutvfield-type-twxrvfield-label-iotinlahle tfix">ediv al o ="field-label">Isgut: e/div>ediv al o ="field-iee s">ediv al o ="field-iee opv w"s2017e/div>e/div>e/div>ediv al o ="fieldvfield-name-field-w as aef="h-keywtinsvfield-type-taxthomy-matt-reiers as field-label-abet ">ediv al o ="field-label">Keywtins: e/div>ediv al o ="field-iee s">ediv al o ="field-iee opv w"seroven an/keywtins/ tings" typeo anskos:Ct ept"s bebutty="rdfs:label skos:n sfLabel"t atatype="">Boingstury

ediv al o ="field-iee odd"seroven an/keywtins/aeasingon th" typeo anskos:Ct ept"s bebutty="rdfs:label skos:n sfLabel"t atatype="">aeasingon thpcry
ediv al o ="field-iee pv w"seroven an/keywtins/..geto the minifianepcry
ediv al o ="field-iee pv w"seroven an/keywtins/bthe s" typeo anskos:Ct ept"s bebutty="rdfs:label skos:n sfLabel"t atatype="">bthe s pca>e/div>e/div>e/div> e/div>