Belgium and the Netherlands Swap Land, and Remain Friends

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/world/europe/belgium-netherlands-land-dispute.html

by ALee • 10 years ago

183 90 10 years ago

Surprisingly this is not an exclave swap: http://www.amusingplanet.com/2012/11/the-curious-case-of-baa...

herge• 10 years ago

Well, it's un-inhabited, so it's a lot easier to swap, as opposed to exclaves who usually have inhabitants who would not be too happy to switch nationality.

fs111• 10 years ago

You would not switch nationality, just the country where you live. If I move to another country, my nationality stays the same.

dnautics2• 10 years ago

pretty sure that the residents of baarle hertog quite like the status quo. If one country does something they don't like (e.g. tax policy), they can redesignate their "front door" as being in the other state, and thus be under the other state's jurisdiction.

vacri4• 10 years ago

I don't understand. Given Schengen and free movement, why couldn't the legal team from Belgium just 'freely move' through the Netherlands to get to their area of jurisdiction?

privong• 10 years ago

Given Schengen and free movement, why couldn't the legal team from Belgium just 'freely move' through the Netherlands to get to their area of jurisdiction?

I suspect this is because it involved official government business and police activity. For example, I don't know if Belgian police carry weapons. But if they do, I assume they don't have jurisdiction to carry in the Netherlands (and vice versa).

Folks downvoting @vacri's question: why? It's a legitimate question.

wodenokoto• 10 years ago

It's a good question. My understanding is that Schengen doesn't allow for free movement of police or military. You have to travel as a civilian.

Someone2• 10 years ago

There are exceptions for emergencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Police_and_judic...: "The Schengen Agreement also permits police officers from one participating state to follow suspects across borders both in hot pursuit and to continue observation operations"), but that's correct.

(And aside: for the Belgian-Dutch border, that has been the case for decades; border controls in the Benelux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux) were abolished in 1970)

patmcguire• 10 years ago

How do countries usually handle rivers moving around? It looks like in the US for state borders they go with where the rivers used to be. Makes for some messy borders

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louisiana/@32.2167684,-91....

macintux2• 10 years ago

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... makes for interesting reading. TIL: "thalweg"

(Update: my uncle argued before the Supreme Court regarding the Indiana/Kentucky border. Trying to find transcripts to no avail, but he lost.)

trhway• 10 years ago

not exactly river moving around, just a border demarcation style change after several decades, small island, 2 big states possessing thermonuclear weapons :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhenbao_Island

ptaipale8• 10 years ago

At least between Finland and Sweden, in the Tornio/Torneå river, there are small adjustments to the border done on a regular basis, every 25 years. The previous border adjustment was in 2006 and the one before that in 1981.

The river changes a little bit as it erodes its banks, and the border is officially moved accordingly. This naturally results in minuscule changes in the land area of both countries, though in this case the changes cancel each other out in the long run. It's a friendly border.

dnautics2• 10 years ago

in the US whether the state border changes depends on the specific agreement between the states, which may in some cases go back to the colonial era (for virginia vs. maryland, along the potomac, it's the low tide mark on the virgina side except for tributaries - so if VA builds out into the river it doesn't become part of maryland). It gets quite difficult to amend these because both states have to agree, plus congress, for any revision of borders. It's usually just not worth it.

One well known dispute was between new jersey and new york, over ellis and liberty islands; the supreme court had to intevene on that one and I think currently both states have jurisdiction.

uiri• 10 years ago

In the 19th century, New York was given jurisdiction over the original land and New Jersey had jurisdiction over the surrounding waters. As the island was expanded through land fill, the newly created land was treated as part of New York until the Supreme Court ruled that the original agreement between the states gave the filled in land to New Jersey which is most of the island today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supco...

pavel_lishin4• 10 years ago

There's a really interesting bit at the end:

Norway was considering an unlikely birthday present for neighboring Finland: an Arctic mountain peak on Mount Halti, the highest mountain in Finland, whose 4,478-foot summit is in Norway.
To mark the 100th anniversary of Finland’s declaration of independence from Russia, a group of Norwegians was urging the government to move a point on its border with Finland about 490 feet to the north and 650 feet to the east.
But that ran afoul of an article of the Norwegian Constitution that states unequivocally that the Kingdom of Norway is “indivisible and inalienable,” and the friendly gesture was called off, at least for now.

The constitution is available online, and has other interesting bits in it, especially as a contrast to the US Constitution: https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/english/constitut...

The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion.

There's also a repealed Article 10, but the English-language Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about it.

ptaipale8• 10 years ago

The repealed Article 10 simply says that "The King is of age, when he turns 20 years. As soon as he enters the 21st year, he declares himself publicly to be an adult."

https://lovdata.no/dokument/HIST/lov/1814-05-17-18140517

I don't quite see why that was repealed, though. Some Norwegian might tell.

As a Finn I sort of appreciate the gesture of proposing moving border to bring the hilltop of Halti to Finland, but I don't really think it is that significant.

The main issue I know about is an old confusion in schoolbooks. The highest point in Finland is 1324 meters above sea level, on the Norwegian border, on the slope of Halti near the top. The top is on Norwegian side and its height is 1328 meters. Someone writing a schoolbook long ago found out that Halti is 1328 meters high and put that as the elevation of highest hill in Finland, without considering that this highest point is actually in Norway.

[edit: typos]

foota• 10 years ago

Maybe they didn't want a legal precedent that you aren't an adult till 21?

martey• 10 years ago

I'm not Norwegian, but I think the confusion is because the numbering of the Articles has changed. Your "Article 10" is now Article 8. [1] The repealed Article (originally Article 12, now listed as Article 10) concerned coronations. [2]

[1] https://www.stortinget.no/en/Grunnlovsjubileet/In-English/Th...

[2] http://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=35248&sek=35247

pavel_lishin4• 10 years ago

The highest point in Finland is 1324 meters above sea level, on the Norwegian border, on the slope of Halti near the top. The top is on Norwegian side and its height is 1328 meters.

I wonder if the Norwegians could make the same gesture by dynamiting their four meters of peak off of their side, thereby moving the peak without moving the territory.

(There's probably something symbolic in using explosives to get around the Constitution.)

poizan42• 10 years ago

If experience shows that any part of this Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway ought to be amended, the proposal to this effect shall be submitted to the first, second or third Storting after a new parliamentary election and be publicly announced in print. But it shall be left to the first, second or third Storting after the following parliamentary election to decide whether or not the proposed amendment shall be adopted. Such an amendment must never, however, contradict the principles embodied in this Constitution, but solely relate to modifications of particular provisions which do not alter the spirit of the Constitution, and two thirds of the Storting must agree with such an amendment.

It's not really clear whether making an amendment saying that as an exception it is allowed to give Mount Halti away to Finland would violate the spirit of that article. I'm thinking that it probably wasn't clear to stortinget either and they didn't want to waste the time of the supreme court for something that was essentially a symbolic gesture.

Also I'm actually a bit surprised that there is no way of making essential changes to articles in the constitution, even if a large majority of the population would vote for it.

Tomte• 10 years ago

The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion.

The same in Sweden.

Additionally, the heir apparent must not travel abroad without the monarch's consent.

Maybe because kings feared their sons might return with a foreign army?

But I cannot help but imagine crown princess Victoria going shopping in New York and -- having forgotten to ask father -- being ineligible all of a sudden. :-)

Symbiote• 10 years ago

I expect Princess Victoria gets written permission to leave, since otherwise she risks someone else trying to disrupt the succession by accusing her of not getting permission.

As an example, plenty of people in the UK don't much like Prince Charles, but there's nothing we can do other than campaign for the end of the monarchy.

hetman2• 10 years ago

The comment at the bottom of the article reminds me why secession is virtually impossible in most places in the world. Any such attempts falter because they're instantly declared unconstitutional by the parent country.

The global community encourages this kind of status quo because many countries worry their ethnic minority will be next.

The only way sadly still seems to be decades of bloodshed before the host population gets fed up enough to let them go.

I don't only mean developing countries like Sudan either. It took until 1998 for the Belfast agreement to be signed over Northern Ireland for example.

mmanfrin• 10 years ago

I don't think this is always true. Scotland was given its referendum. Britain voted on secession from the EU. Northern Ireland is talking about unification.

There are certainly places like Spain which have been beating the drum of 'No Catalan Independence', but there are modern states that do recognize some uncodified right to self determination.

Some resistance is natural though, and in some cases good -- tribal divisions can happen on any line. If California seceded, the Jefferson region would want to secede from that, and no doubt there would be even smaller fractures.

In the end, I think every state has its own gravity and own structural strength. Grow too big, and you suffer from your own weight, risk fractures.

hetman2• 10 years ago

But Northern Ireland _is_ an example of freedom through bloodshed. There was decades of violence before the UK conceded to give them genuine choice. Arguably Scotland benefited from this change in the UK's public opinion as a result of Ireland, without having to go through the same process.

dboreham• 10 years ago

Scotland always was a separate country though, since 1314 or so. There was a referendum in the 70's fwiw (also lost).

anigbrowl3• 10 years ago

The positive examples you cite are very recent though, and historically unusual. As another poster commented, Northern Ire;and's status is the culmination of a long and bloody insurgency or fight for freedom, depending on which side you support. You could argue that it took 25 years of guerrilla war there before the idea of holding a plebiscite on the province's future was taken seriously.

finid• 10 years ago

Don't you just feel for Ukraine.

But the Ukrainian govt has itself to blame, for being used as a pawn. Now Ukranians can only look wistfully in the direction of Crimea

brandmeyer• 10 years ago

Its not just ethnic minorities, either. I've been thinking that a possible solution to the rural/urban cultural divide in the US would be to allow the secession of some metro areas from their parent states, forming new city-states in the process.

pavel_lishin4• 10 years ago

Isn't Hong Kong a sort of semi-precedent? As I understand it, it never seceded from China, but was a semi-independent economic experiment.

Animats• 10 years ago

Washington DC has such an arrangement, and it's such a headache that part of it was given back to Virginia a century ago, and there's talk of giving much of the rest of it back to Maryland.

BurningFrog• 10 years ago

Norway itself seceded from the union with Sweden in 1905.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_betwe...

qw• 10 years ago

The difference is that Norway was always a separate country.

It shared the same king as Denmark and later Sweden, but it was not considered part of the King's home country.

ende• 10 years ago

International relations can largely be described as honor among thieves.

maverick_iceman• 10 years ago

India and Bangladesh swapped territories in 2015 during which India lost 40 sq km of land.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Bangladesh_encla...

ptaipale8• 10 years ago

It's interesting that so close to the heart of European Union, the police and judicial authorities needs special permits to enter through the area of neighbouring country, even if they won't do any official business there, they just pass through. Anybody else can move about freely, no questions asked.

Between Finland and Sweden, the police forces on both sides of the border have an agreement so that they can move about, even in official business. A pursuit of a criminal can be extended across border, and e.g. ambulances are shared. The crew is bilingual or works in Finnish (the population in the border area is traditionally mostly Finnish-speaking even in the Swedish side).

The countries each have a nation-wide public safety digital radio network (TETRA) and while the networks are strictly distinct, the police cars or ambulances in each country may have a radio unit from the neighbour so that they can connect to the neighbour network when they need to, or their radios can be roamed to the neighbour network through ISI interface.

Someone2• 10 years ago

"A pursuit of a criminal can be extended across border, and e.g. ambulances are shared"

The examples you mention all involve cases where one cannot reasonably wait for permission to pass. Those are handled similar between Belgium and the Netherlands and, I guess/think (there may be exceptions for cases like Switzerland and Norway, who are in the Schengen area but not in the EU), everywhere in the Schengen area.

This case was different, though; the victim was clearly dead, so there wasn't much of an urgency. If there is no urgent need, would Sweden allow armed Finnish police officers to enter the country or vice versa? What if it were a few heavily armed SWAT teams in armed personnel carriers?

ptaipale8• 10 years ago

The police in the border region in both countries is currently being trained for patrolling in the other country (there are some differences in legislation and operational procedures). So not just pass-through but actual law enforcement work.

After WW II, when Finnish Lapland's roads were largely destroyed by retreating Germans, Finns used the roads on the Swedish side of the river to get up north. Today it is perhaps the other way round; the Finnish side has more population and the roads up river are bigger so it might be feasible for the Swedish to use Finnish roads even if the destination is again across river on Swedish side.

SWAT teams no, not without urgent need and/or official request, and people would rise eyebrows also for SWAT teams driving around in their own country for no reason.

ptaipale8• 10 years ago

BTW, also between Finland and Norway people are mostly cool about neighbouring country's police crossing over.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/armed_norwegian_police_cro...

The Putin troll column of course tried to make out a "NATO occupying force" thing out of it but then again, that's empty barrels making noise.

lucb1e3• 10 years ago

I got an apartment a few kilometers away. It's on the outskirts of Maastricht and to properly enter Belgium, you need to cross the Maas first (or Meuse I think the article called it?). Everyone there speaks Dutch, works in Maastricht, shops in Maastricht... It's the same city but officially you're in a different country. And so I'll be missing out on 291 euros a month in rent subsidies... But it was the only thing available and reasonably priced so better than nothing. I just wish they'd swap more land where it makes sense :/

ThrustVectoring2• 10 years ago

In all likelihood, your landlord is missing out on 291 euros a month in rent subsidies.

lucb1e3• 10 years ago

Nah it's not that cheap. This is not a normal price lowered by 291, though maybe half.

bigblind• 10 years ago

Just out of curiosity, are you a student at Maastricht University?

lucb1e3• 10 years ago

No but my girlfriend is. I study a bit further north. Why?

roel_v• 10 years ago

If the area you're talking about were to be Dutch, most likely it wouldn't be (rental) apartments in the first place; and if it were, rents would be much higher (probably even more than the e291). Which is why there are so many Dutch people living there at all. Also still, many people there would be quite offended if you told them they're more Dutch than Belgian. And a bit further up north there are whole villages on the east side of the river; Smeermaas for example.

As to why that part is Belgian: at the end of the "Belgian Revolution" (or "Belgian Uprising", depending on who you ask) the border was drawn at the location that each party occupied at the time. Since there was an Orange-minded general stationed in Maastricht during that period, he had kept the Belgian 'army' at bay quite easily with the cannons on the walls. So the border is at the distance that a cannon could shoot at the time. If you go up the ruins of the city walls in Maastricht (next to the statue of d'Artagnan, the fourth musketeer, who died there during another siege of Maastricht), there is still a cannon like that standing there.

Also, 'Meuse' is the name of the river in English; which of course is like that because the French name is 'la Meuse'.

fred_is_fred• 10 years ago

Illinois and Missouri need to do this after years of floods and the New Madrid earthquake have left enclaves on the wrong side of the river in several places.

OJFord• 10 years ago

This story prompted me to wonder [0] how mapping organisations (Ordnance Survey, Google Maps, et al) are made aware of the specifics of such details.

Grateful to hear from anyone with insight!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13065514

kabes• 10 years ago

Does anybody live on that land? I mean, this would be like a country kicking its own citizens out. Suddenly your government your house is not in their country anymore.

gerty• 10 years ago

According to OSM, there are no houses in the swapped areas, so they probably just swapped some grass, sand and roads.

caf2• 10 years ago

Maybe Canada and the US can come to a similar agreement at Estcourt Station.

martinpw• 10 years ago

Reminds me of this interesting case of a piece of land between Egypt and Sudan that neither side wants, because having ownership would mean conceding ownership of a second larger piece of land to the other country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil

aninhumer• 10 years ago

because having ownership would mean conceding ownership of a second larger piece of land to the other country

I don't think claiming Bir Tawil would inherently concede anything, it's just that both sides prefer to base their claims on historical boundaries to make them seem more justified.

pizza• 10 years ago

Oh my god

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/american-claim...

mastazi• 10 years ago

perilunar• 10 years ago

And then there is Liberland [1], a micronation proclaimed on land unwanted by both sides of a border dispute.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland

djsumdog2• 10 years ago

I got to see the border of this country a while back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria

Here's a photo:

http://journeyofkhan.us/photo/transnistria-across-the-nistru...

http://journeyofkhan.us/photo/bridge-to-transnistria/

oblio• 10 years ago

In case some folks here on HN don't already know it, I like to tell the story of this "country".

Basically, it starts in the Middle Ages when there are 2 small states under Ottoman (Turkish) influence: Wallachia and Moldavia. As it happens for all small states, they get bullied around by their bigger neighbors, primarily the Ottomans, Russia and Austria. For our story only the Ottomans and Russia are important.

So the Ottomans and Russia keep fighting over the region and they keep trading territories here, completely disregarding the history of the region or the ethnic groups present there. Imperialism at its finest.

Wallachia is left more or less unscathed, but around 1812 Moldova is basically split in two, Russia taking the less developed Eastern part, called Bessarabia.

After all this abuse, Wallachia and Moldova decide to unite and form modern Romania, around 1860. So Moldova basically disappears as a state.

Fast forward to the end of WW1, Romania is getting bigger by incorporating all the lands around it that are majority Romanian, so Bessarabia becomes a part of Romania.

Meanwhile, Russia becomes the USSR. It's not hard to guess that Romania and the USSR are not the best of friends. The Soviets never recognize the Romanian takeover/reclaiming of Bessarabia, but can't really attack Romania (yet). So they form a sort of "Moldovan Soviet Republic" outside of the historical territory of Moldova. Basically "Moldova in exile". I like to compare it to Mexico creating a "New Texas" state after being kicked out of Texas.

Then, before WW2, as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Nazi-Soviet pact, the Soviets are allowed to attack Romania. They don't attack, instead they send an ultimatum and Romania is forced to give up Bessarabia, which is incorporated into the Moldovan Soviet Republic.

So now the new Moldova has both Bessarabia and that extra part that was never Moldovan. That part is across the river Dniester, ergo "Trans" (across) "nistr" (Dniester is "Nistru" in Romanian) "-ia" (particle for "land of" in Romania).

The USSR falls, Moldova becomes independent. Transnistria has Russia armies on its territory, so it declares its independence. Russia signs an agreement to pull back its army. 20 years after the agreement, the army is still there...

known• 10 years ago

Hope India and Pakistan resolve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_dispute in similar manner

elihu• 10 years ago

Perhaps CGP Grey will add a footnote to his "Holland vs the Netherlands" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

rurban• 10 years ago

India and Pakistan should have done the same over the sloppy border line in the north done by the british, crossing natural rivers. A constant source for terrorism.

Belgium and the Netherlands Swap Land, and Remain Friends

Related Stories