Agreement
The agreement largely finalized the 4,200 km (2,600 mi) border between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, except for a few disputed areas. The agreement states the intentions of both parties in resolving and demarcating the disputed border peacefully, identifies the various points of contention, and identifies the border as running through the center of the main channel of any river, based on the thalweg principle. The location of the main channel and the possession of the various islands would be decided in the course of the demarcation work. Various other articles stipulate military, usage, and traffic rights along the river borders. Two areas, Heixiazi and Abagaitu Islet, were excluded from the agreement, and their status would not be resolved until 2004. According to the estimates by Boris Tkachenko, a Russian historian, the treaty resulted in net territorial gain for China, which received about 720 km², including some seven hundred islands.
Because islands on the Argun, Amur, and Ussuri rivers often split the rivers into multiple streams, the location of the main stream (and thus the border) was often not immediately apparent. Obviously, each country would receive a greater number of islands if the recognized main channel was closer to the opposite bank. Thus, the demarcation work was often controversial and subject to local protests over disputed territories. The demarcation work continued nearly up until its 1997 deadline.
Read more about this topic: 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Agreement
Famous quotes containing the word agreement:
“A marriage based on full confidence, based on complete and unqualified frankness on both sides; they are not keeping anything back; there’s no deception underneath it all. If I might so put it, it’s an agreement for the mutual forgiveness of sin.”
—Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906)
“The doctrine of those who have denied that certainty could be attained at all, has some agreement with my way of proceeding at the first setting out; but they end in being infinitely separated and opposed. For the holders of that doctrine assert simply that nothing can be known; I also assert that not much can be known in nature by the way which is now in use. But then they go on to destroy the authority of the senses and understanding; whereas I proceed to devise helps for the same.”
—Francis Bacon (1560–1626)
“The methodological advice to interpret in a way that optimizes agreement should not be conceived as resting on a charitable assumption about human intelligence that might turn out to be false. If we cannot find a way to interpret the utterances and other behaviour of a creature as revealing a set of beliefs largely consistent and true by our standards, we have no reason to count that creature as rational, as having beliefs, or as saying anything.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)