Civil Rights
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.
Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.
Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.
Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.
Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.
Wilmington, North Carolina once had a thriving Black middle class and an elected interracial government. In 1898 white supremacists used violence to overthrow that government, kill Black residents and drive many others from the city.
MORE →Reflects the personal views, recollections, and perspective of the author, Mike Davis.
This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985

A maritime boundary is a conceptual division of Earth's water surface areas using physiographical or geopolitical criteria. As such, it usually bounds areas of exclusive national rights over mineral and biological resources,[1] encompassing maritime features, limits and zones.[2] Generally, a maritime boundary is delineated at a particular distance from a jurisdiction's coastline. Although in some countries the term maritime boundary represents borders of a maritime nation[3] that are recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, maritime borders usually serve to identify the edge of international waters.
Maritime boundaries exist in the context of territorial waters, contiguous zones, and exclusive economic zones; however, the terminology does not encompass lake or river boundaries, which are considered within the context of land boundaries.
Some maritime boundaries have remained indeterminate despite efforts to clarify them. This is explained by an array of factors, some of which involve regional problems.[4]
The delineation or delimitation of maritime boundaries has strategic, economic and environmental implications (see maritime delimitation).[5]
The terms boundary, frontier and border are often used as if they were interchangeable, but they are also terms with precise meanings.[6]
A boundary is a line. The terms "frontier", "borderland" and "border" are zones of indeterminate width. Such areas form the outermost part of a country. Borders are bounded on one side by a national boundary.[7] There are variations in the specific terminology of maritime boundary agreements which have been concluded since the 1970s. Such differences are less important than what is being delimited.[8]
Features that affect maritime boundaries include islands and the submerged seabed of the continental shelf.[2]
The process of boundary delimitation in the ocean encompasses the natural prolongation of geological features and outlying territory. The process of establishing "positional" borders encompasses the distinction between previously resolved and never-resolved controversies.[9]
The limits of maritime boundaries are expressed in polylines and in polygon layers of sovereignty and control,[10] calculated from the declaration of a baseline. The conditions under which a state may establish such baseline are described in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). A baseline of a country can be the low water line, a straight baseline (a line that encloses bays, estuaries, inland waters,...) or a combination of the two.[1]
Maritime spaces can be divided into the following groups based on their legal status:
While many maritime spaces can be classified as belonging to the same group, this does not imply that they all have the same legal regime. International straits and canals have their own legal status as well.[11]
The zones of maritime boundaries are expressed in concentric limits surrounding coastal and feature baselines.[1]
In the case of overlapping zones, the boundary is presumed to conform to the equidistance principle or it is explicitly described in a multilateral treaty.[1]
Contemporary negotiations have produced tripoint and quadripoint determinations. For example, in the 1982 Australia–France Marine Delimitation Agreement, for the purposes of drawing the treaty's equidistant lines it was assumed that France has sovereignty over Matthew and Hunter Islands, a territory that is also claimed by Vanuatu. The northernmost point in the boundary is a tripoint with the Solomon Islands. The boundary runs in a roughly north–south direction and then turns and runs west–east until it almost reaches the 170th meridian east.[12]
The concept of maritime boundaries is a relatively new concept.[1] The historical record is a backdrop for evaluating border issues.[13] The evaluation of historic rights are governed by distinct legal regimes in customary international law, including research and analysis based on
The study of treaties on maritime boundaries is important as (a) as a source of general or particular international law; (b) as evidence of existing customary law; and (c) as evidence of the emerging development of custom.[15] The development of "customary law" affects all nations.
The attention accorded this subject has evolved beyond formerly-conventional norms like the three-mile limit.
Multilateral treaties and documents describing the baselines of countries can be found on the website of the United Nations.[1]
For example, the Australia–France Marine Delimitation Agreement establishes ocean boundaries between Australia and New Caledonia in the Coral Sea (including the boundary between Australia's Norfolk Island and New Caledonia). It consists of 21 straight-line maritime segments defined by 22 individual coordinate points forming a modified equidistant line between the two territories.[12]
Controversies about territorial waters tend to encompass two dimensions: (a) territorial sovereignty, which are a legacy of history; and (b) relevant jurisdictional rights and interests in maritime boundaries, which are mainly due to differing interpretations of the law of the sea.[16] An example of this may be reviewed in the context of the ongoing Kuwait-Iraq maritime dispute over the Khawr Abd Allah waterway.
Many disputes have been resolved through negotiations,[17] but not all of them.

Among the array of unsettled disputes, the maritime borders of the two Koreas in the Yellow Sea represent a visually stark contrast.[18]
A western line of military control between the two Koreas was unilaterally established by the United Nations Command in 1953.[21][22] Although the North asserts a differently configured boundary line, there is no dispute that a few small islands close to the North Korean coastline have remained jurisdiction of the United Nations since 1953.[23]
The map at the right shows the differing maritime boundary lines of the two Koreas. The ambits of these boundaries encompass overlapping jurisdictional claims.[24] The explicit differences in the way the boundary lines are configured is shown in the map at the right.
In a very small area, this represents a unique illustration of differences in mapping and delineation strategies.
Violent clashes in these disputed waters include what are known as the first Yeonpyeong incident, the second Yeonpyeong incident, and the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong.[25]
Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.
A maritime boundary is a conceptual division of Earth's water surface areas using physiographical or geopolitical criteria. As such, it usually bounds areas of exclusive national rights over mineral and biological resources, encompassing maritime features, limits and zones. Generally, a maritime boundary is delineated at a particular distance from a jurisdiction's coastline. Although in some countries the term maritime boundary represents borders of a maritime nation that are recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, maritime borders usually serve to identify the edge of international waters. Maritime boundaries exist in the context of territorial waters, contiguous zones, and exclusive economic zones; however, the terminology does not encompass lake or river boundaries, which are considered within the context of land boundaries. Some maritime boundaries have remained indeterminate despite efforts to clarify them. This is explained by an array of factors, some of which involve regional problems. The delineation or delimitation of maritime boundaries has strategic, economic and environmental implications (see maritime delimitation).
The Russia–United States maritime boundary was established by the June 1, 1990 USA/USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement (Russian: Соглашение между СССР и США о линии разграничения морских пространств). The United States Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification as early as on September 16, 1991, but it has yet to be approved by the Russian State Duma. This delimitation line is also known as the Baker–Shevardnadze line agreement (Russian: Соглашении о Линии Шеварднадзе-Бейкера), after the officials who signed the deal, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union Eduard Shevardnadze and US secretary of state James Baker. The 1990 Agreement has been provisionally applied by the two countries since its date of signature. (The Russian Federation is the successor of the USSR with respect to the 1990 Agreement and the agreement to provisionally apply it.) In general concept, the 1990 line is based on the 1867 United States – Russia Convention providing for the US purchase of Alaska. From the point, 65° 30' N, 168° 58' 37" W the maritime boundary extends north along the 168° 58' 37" W meridian through the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea into the Arctic Ocean as far as permitted under international law. From the same point southwards, the boundary follows a line specified by maritime geographic positions given in the Agreement. The legality of the Shevardnadze-Baker agreement has been raised in Russia many times, pointing out that the initiators of the agreement did not hold preliminary discussions sufficient to consider this agreement from the point of view of the Government of Russia (USSR). Nikolai Ivanovich Ryzhkov, who held the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR at that time, claimed that neither the Politburo nor the Council of Ministers of the USSR considered him, and he, the head of government, never signed such documents. The staff of the Russian Foreign Ministry refers to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated May 30, 1990 No. 532 "On the delimitation of maritime spaces with the United States", in which the draft Agreement was approved. At the same time, there was no provision in the legislation of the USSR for the temporary entry into force of treaties on territorial division with other states. They are subject to mandatory ratification. Moreover, in accordance with the Constitution of the USSR (paragraph 3, Article 108), the definition of the state border of the USSR was the exclusive responsibility of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. The United States ratified the Agreement on September 16, 1991. The issue of ratification of the Agreement by Russia was not raised, primarily due to ambiguous assessments of its economic consequences for fishing in the Bering Sea. Russian government agencies have repeatedly conducted an examination of this Agreement for its compliance with the norms of international maritime law, the interests of Russia and an assessment of possible consequences in the event of non-ratification. The agreement does not contradict the interests of Russia, except for the loss of the right to conduct marine fishing in the area in the middle part of the Bering Sea. The Russian side has been negotiating with the United States in order to conclude a comprehensive agreement on fishing in the northern part of the Bering Sea, which would compensate Russian fishermen for losses from fishing in areas ceded to the United States. In 1999, the state of Alaska intervened in the dispute. In its resolution HJR-27, the state legislature questioned the legality of the borders between the United States and Russia, since on June 1, 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker signed the agreement "On Maritime Borders" without the participation of representatives of Alaska in negotiations and without the consent of the state to the terms of the agreement.
The Canada–France Maritime Boundary Case was a dispute between Canada and France that was decided in 1992 by an arbitral tribunal created by the parties to resolve the dispute. The decision established the extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the French territory of Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
India–Sri Lanka maritime boundary agreements were signed in 1974 and 1976 between India and Sri Lanka to define the international maritime boundary between the two countries. Treaties on maritime boundary were necessary to facilitate law enforcement and resource management, and to avoid conflict, in the waters since both countries located closely in the Indian Ocean, particularly in Palk Strait. The first agreement was regarding the maritime boundary in waters between Ram Setu and the Palk Strait, and came into force on July 8, 1974. The second agreement, which was signed on March 23 and entered into force on May 10, 1976, defined the maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal. India, Sri Lanka and Maldives signed another agreement for determination of the tri-junction point in the Gulf of Mannar in July 1976. Later in November, India and Sri Lanka signed another agreement to extend the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mannar. As part of the agreement, Sri Lanka received the full control of Katchatheevu island, which was earlier visited by both Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen.
Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.
MORE →Shirley Chisholm, elected in 1968.