Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday September 04 2019, @02:36AM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

From Cyprus to Ukraine, Israel to the Balkans, conflicts over land have long turned bloody. But on Monday, the Netherlands and Belgium managed to settle a festering territorial problem, without firing a single bullet and with an unlikely spur: a headless corpse.

In a signing ceremony attended by their respective royals, Belgium agreed to cede about 35 acres of scenic land by the Meuse River in exchange for about seven acres of land from the Netherlands. The two countries had formalized their border in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1843.

In a region that has long known geopolitical and linguistic squabbles, and where Belgium has lived in the shadow of its neighbor, the land swap was anything but inevitable. That apparently is where the headless body comes in.

The land belonging to Belgium — equivalent to about 15 soccer fields — is linked to a hard-to-reach peninsula belonging to the Netherlands. In 1961, when the Meuse was reconfigured to aid navigation, it had the side effect of pushing three pieces of land onto the wrong side of the river. According to the Dutch news media, the uninhabited area subsequently gained a reputation for lawlessness, wild parties and prostitution.

However, several years ago, when a couple accidentally stumbled on a headless body and called the Dutch authorities, they were informed that the strip of land was under Belgian jurisdiction. But the Belgian authorities could not get there by land without crossing Dutch territory, which required special permission. The only alternative was a difficult river crossing.

Referring to the discovery of the body, Jean-François Duchesne, the police commissioner of the Lower Meuse region, told The Associated Press last year that the journey to the area had been arduous. “So we had to go there by boat with all that was needed — the prosecutor, the legal doctor, the judicial lab — we had to do round trips over the water,” he said. “It really was not very practical.”

The two nations then decided to head off future jurisdictional problems by negotiating a peaceful exchange of parcels of land each country had that were stranded on the wrong bank of the river. Belgium’s foreign minister, Didier Reynders, said on Monday that the agreement reflected excellent Belgian-Dutch relations and was proof that “borders can be peacefully changed.”


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:01PM (3 children)

    by Tokolosh (585) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:01PM (#889553)

    1. All land should be owned by a person (not the state), with security of title.
    2. Persons are governed by their own consent.

    Beyond that, the function of Belgium and the Netherlands is to serve as a venue for the great powers to settle their differences.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by meustrus on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:14PM (2 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday September 04 2019, @03:14PM (#889559)

    1. Back to medieval feudalism then?
    2. If I don't consent, does that mean nobody can punish me for stealing your stuff?

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Thursday September 05 2019, @03:19AM (1 child)

      by Tokolosh (585) on Thursday September 05 2019, @03:19AM (#889837)

      1. I don't think you understand the feudal system. Serfdom is not government by consent.
      2. My stuff will not be on your land. It will be on mine, where I have consented to government that says stealing is punishable with hand chopping.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:35AM

        by Mykl (1112) on Thursday September 05 2019, @05:35AM (#889883)

        2. My stuff will not be on your land. It will be on mine, where I have consented to government that says stealing is punishable with hand chopping.

        But if people are governed by their own consent, what if I don't consent to having my hand chopped off for stealing? Doesn't that violate Rule 2 earlier?

        For that matter, what if I don't recognise your claim to land? Why should your claim on this land be greater than mine?