Border Rivers and Rights of Navigation

During a recent bout of insomnia, I was looking at the map of Germany and I had an odd thought. Where a major river is a border between two nations, and by major river I mean one big enough for sea-going vessels to travel down (at least partly), what are the rules around navigation, in particular for warships.

To give some examples
1) The River Ems is the border between the UDP and Munster, but East Frisia appears to cut Munster off from having easy access to the North Sea. If Munster builds liners and/or warships on the Ems, in peacetime and under normal friendly conditions, can Munster liners and warships sail up river and out into the North Sea without the Dutch or Frisians getting grumpy?

2) For the Ducjy of Lauenburg, the River Elbe runs through it but the mouth of the river is effectively (looking at the map) its northern boundary and divided between Stade and Hamburg. Could Lauenburg ships sail out into the North Sea without issues or would they need permission of Stade and/or Hamburg?

3) The same situation for Hanover, the River Aller and the two Bremens (at a time when the Archbishopric of Bremen isn't Hanoverian)

So, stressing I am wondering about times of peace and everyone being friendly, not in war

Jason2 wrote:During a recent bout of insomnia, I was looking at the map of Germany and I had an odd thought. Where a major river is a border between two nations, and by major river I mean one big enough for sea-going vessels to travel down (at least partly), what are the rules around navigation, in particular for warships.

So, stressing I am wondering about times of peace and everyone being friendly, not in war

I think the short answer is neither party fully owns it, but both have rights of use. It is a little bit like shared access up to a farm: if one party wanted to be really awkward and block half of the lane with his tractor, this would interfere with the other party's legitimate use of the lane (since he couldn't get his own tractor up). Doesn't matter if it is merchant ships or warships, the same principle applies.

Of course since war itself is a challenge to both ownership and jurisdiction the question of what is legal/illegal does not apply.

But what makes this a particularly interesting question is that rivers are not simply means of transport, but a source of water. There have been many examples of states or individuals trying to exert control over water sources to the detriment of those living further upstream (i.e. closer to where the river meets the sea). This could be by diverting the river or building a damn or using water for irrigation which then deprives those upstream of the amount of water they previously enjoyed, impairing the value of their property or in extreme cases making it impossible to live there.

Some of the strangest cases of this kind are those where nations have sought to claim that because they own the source of a river, they own the river. There is an ongoing dispute over the ownership of the Nile which is discussed here:

http://origins.osu.edu/article/who-owns-nile-egypt-sudan-and-ethiopia-s-history-changing-dam

Personally I think the arguments are somewhat spurious: a river like the Nile has multiple sources and at any single point how is it possible to determine which water drains from which particular field? With the climate changing in rather unpredictable ways, there is no claim to ownership of the water if the river floods and damages property. So the water itself cannot really be said to be owned by anyone, just used.

Thanks and yes it was some thoughts around the idea of "water wars" that were part of my wondering.

I think as you know I do enjoy developing navies in the games and so, as a mental exercise, I sometimes look at the maps and think "if I played that position how could I develop a navy and then use it". No point building a navy if it can't sail up river

Glad I could help.

Of course there is never anything to stop a 3rd party being awkward and placing obstacles in a river to stop your ships sailing up it. Borders/boundaries of any kind tend to receive extraordinary attention from the dirty tricks department.

Like you I always look at rivers to get an idea of the shape of countries, although on the China map it makes no sense to me at all.

I never managed to try this, but I did devise one plan to take a town by having engineers build a dam, wait for the water to build up and then blow the dam so the water crashed against the defences of the town, flooding the interior. It might not have created a breach, but would have drenched the powder supplies of the defenders which should have improved the chance of taking the town.

I guess it is the difference between good water and bad water.

I guess having previously worked in a job where I taught the history of the Thames, I (like yourself) always look at rivers etc in a historical sense. With China, I think it is a bit like Egypt, the modern paths of rivers are often very different to the historical paths, and it's only with the latest technology we are actually realising this and working out how the paths of a river now are very different to those of 200, 500, 1,000 years ago...

Your idea of dams sounds almost like the Dutch defence plan for WW1 in reverse. They had a strategy that, if anyone had invaded, they would have flooded the lowlands in various areas and leave the cities/towns (mostly on higher ground) safe...but attacking forces effectively washed away

Yes - rivers are interesting. With Egypt being so dependent upon the Nile throughout its history, I can see why it is still a current topic for debate. Really don't know much about Chinese rivers other than there are 2 main ones, but yes I can imagine that given the volume/power of the water flowing through them they will have changed course frequently over time. Other than our discussions, most of my knowledge of China comes from postage stamps which although perhaps not the most balanced way of finding out information does show what the Chinese themselves value. There are some stunning mountain landscapes, and perhaps part of the fascination with China is that it is so different to England.

On dams, I don't pretend it was an original idea - I thought it would work best in mountainous areas rather than lowlands simply because the engineering would be easier. I do like low tech ideas scaled up, bit like the way the Romans approached Masada: take a chunk of one hill and build another hill closer. I'm not much of a wargamer and much prefer ships over soldiers, but if there is one aspect of armies I like it is engineers.

Generally speaking river (and other water course) borders are set at either the "thalweg" - the median deep water line which gives both parties half of the river or water course. Or they are set at the low water mark on one side of the water way.

Such borders can move and tend to be the subject of much diplomacy and individual agreement rather than a general approach in international law.

Historically, disputes tended not to be about water supplies but over who had the right to tax shipping and trade using the waterway.

Classic example from modern times is the Iran-Iraq border on the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Original 1937 treaty put the border on the Iranian bank and gave control of waterway to Iraq. In the 1970's the Shah forced a much weaker Iraqi government to move border to the thalweg.
Then during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war one of Iraq main objectives was to restore its control over the Shatt al-Arab.

But in the Glori period a hot bed of such disputes was the Baltic. Denmark claimed right to levy "sound duties" on shipping using the sound to pass between the Baltic and the North Sea but the Swedes had an exception. Danes were determinded to end this exception while the Swedes were equally determined to keep it. The Swedes were also keen to levy taxes on the mouths of the various rivers flowing into the Balticy including some rivers which were not even theirs.

Which tended to upset the neighbours and start various Northern Wars.

In G2 Rumelia was keen on river borders & borders being on the north bank of the Drava etc which also seemed to upset the neighbours and start Balkan Wars..........look the Layerbey had 4 wives and numerous concumbines who he needed to take boating without hassle from border patrols!

Thanks for that Stuart I must admit I did wonder about the levies at the river mouths, had something about it somewhere before...

It was just of academic interest really, like I said the result of insomnia and looking at the map and wondering how such things worked in Glory...of course why either the Prince-Bishop of Munster or the Duke of Brunswick-Launeburg (if ever played) would want to even go down the naval/maritime route is of even more theoretical musings

Jason2 wrote:Thanks for that Stuart  I must admit I did wonder about the levies at the river mouths, had something about it somewhere before...

It was just of academic interest really, like I said the result of insomnia and looking at the map and wondering how such things worked in Glory...of course why either the Prince-Bishop of Munster or the Duke of Brunswick-Launeburg (if ever played) would want to even go down the naval/maritime route is of even more theoretical musings

You would have probably liked the game in with the Austrian player got niggled about HRE Princes not following his orders and resigned the Imperial Throne.

The Elector of Pfalz won the next election on on a program based on having too many customers stickers on his tobacco imports and wanting to establish a Rhine based custom's union which could in principle expand to include all the states of the Empire who wished to join.

Think the view put forward was that by the time a case of tobacco got down the Rhine to Bavaria it had crossed something like 15 customs borders and this was bad for German Pipe Smokers like the Elector of Pfalz.