2020 United States redistricting cycle

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle will take place following the completion of the 2020 United States Census. In all fifty states, various bodies will re-draw state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives will also draw new districts for that legislative body.
The rules for redistricting vary from state to state, but all states draw new legislative and congressional maps either in the state legislature, in redistricting commissions, or through some combination of the state legislature and a redistricting commission. Though various laws and court decisions have put constraints on redistricting, many redistricting institutions continue to practice gerrymandering, which involves drawing new districts with the intention of giving a political advantage to specific groups. Political parties prepare for redistricting years in advance, and partisan control of redistricting institutions can provide a party with major advantages. Aside from the possibility of mid-decade redistricting, the districts drawn in the 2020 redistricting cycle will remain in effect until the next round of redistricting following the 2030 United States Census.
United States House of Representatives.
Reapportionment.
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the United States House of Representatives and apportions Representatives to the states based on population, with reapportionment occurring every ten years. The decennial United States Census determines the population of each state. Each of the fifty states is guaranteed at least one representative, and the Huntington–Hill method is used to assign the remaining 385 seats to states based on the population of each state. Congress has provided for reapportionment every ten years since the passage of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Since 1913, the U.S. House of Representatives has consisted of 435 members, a number set by statute, though the number of Representatives temporarily increased in 1959. Reapportionment also affects presidential elections, as each state is guaranteed electoral votes equivalent to the number of Representatives and Senators representing the state.
Prior to the 2022 U.S. House elections, each state apportioned more than one Representative will draw new congressional districts based on the reapportionment following the 2020 Census. Based on the official counts of the 2020 Census, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, California, and West Virginia will each lose one seat, Texas will gain two seats, and Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Oregon, and Montana will each gain one seat. Though California lost a seat for the first time in its history, the 2020 Census continued a broader trend of Northeastern and Midwestern states losing seats and Western and Southern states gaining seats.
Congressional redistricting methods.
Each U.S. Representative represents one congressional district, which encompasses all or part of a single state. Every state with more than one congressional district must pass a new redistricting plan before the filing deadlines of the 2022 elections. In most states, the state legislature draws the new districts, but some states have established redistricting commissions. Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, and Washington use independent commissions to draw House districts, while Hawaii and New Jersey use "politician commissions" to draw House districts. Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming will continue to have only one representative in the House, and so will not have to draw new House districts.
In all other states, the legislature draws district lines, although some states have advisory commissions that can play a major role in drawing lines, and other states have backup commissions if the state legislature is unable to draw the lines itself. In many states, districts are drawn with the intent to benefit certain political groups, including one of the two major political parties, in a practice known as gerrymandering. Most states draw new lines by passing a law the same way any other law is passed, but some states have special procedures. Connecticut and Maine require a two-thirds super-majority in each house of the state legislature for redistricting plans, while district lines are not subject to gubernatorial veto in Connecticut and North Carolina. The Ohio redistricting process is designed to encourage the legislature to pass a map with bipartisan support, but the majority party can pass maps that last for four years (as opposed to the normal ten years) without the support of the minority party. The legislatures of Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia can override gubernatorial vetoes with a simple majority vote, giving governors in those states little leverage in the drawing of new district maps.
Limits on congressional redistricting.
Though the states have wide latitude in the re-drawing of congressional districts, state power over redistricting is subject to limits set by the U.S. Constitution, rulings of the federal judiciary and statutes passed by Congress. In the case of "Wesberry v. Sanders," the Supreme Court of the United States established that states must draw districts that are equal in population "as nearly as is practicable." Subsequent court cases have required states to redistrict every ten years, although states can redistrict more often than that depending on their own statutes and constitutional provisions. Since the passage of the 1967 Uniform Congressional Districts Act, most states have been barred from using multi-member districts; all states currently use single-member districts. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes protections against racial redistricting plans that would deny minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The Supreme Court case of "Thornburg v. Gingles" established a test to determine whether redistricting lines violate the Voting Rights Act. In some states, courts have required the creation of majority-minority districts.
In addition to standards required by federal law, many states have also adopted other criteria, including compactness, contiguity, and the preservation of political subdivisions (such as cities or counties) or communities of interest. Some states, including Arizona, require the drawing of competitive districts.
Control of congressional redistricting.
Congressional redistricting plans passed by legislature.
The table shows the partisan control of states in which congressional redistricting is enacted through either a bill or a joint resolution passed by the legislature. States in which the governor can technically veto the bill, but that veto can be overridden by a simple majority of the state legislature, are marked as "simple maj. override".
An * indicates that a 2/3 super-majority vote is required in the legislature
A ↑ indicates that one party can override a gubernatorial veto because of a super-majority in the legislature
A † indicates that the state employs an advisory commission
A ‡ indicates that the state employs a backup commission
Congressional redistricting plans passed by commissions.
Six states with multiple members of the House of Representatives use independent commissions to draw congressional districts. In Arizona, Montana, and Washington, the four party leaders of the state house and state senate each select one member of the Independent Redistricting Commission, and these four members select a fifth member who is not affiliated with either party. In California, the Citizen's Redistricting Commission consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four individuals who are not members of either party. In Idaho, the four party leaders of the state house and state senate and the chairmen of the two most popular state parties (based on the results of the most recent gubernatorial vote) each select a member of the Commission for Reapportionment.
Two states use politician commissions to draw congressional districts. In Hawaii, the president of the state senate and the speaker of the state house each select two members of the Reapportionment Commission, while the minority parties in both chambers each appoint two members of the commission. The eight members of the commission then select a ninth member, who also chairs the commission. In New Jersey, the four party leaders of the state house and state senate and the party leaders of the two largest parties each choose two members of the Apportionment Commission, and the twelve members of the commission select a thirteenth member to chair the commission.
One state, Virginia, uses a hybrid, bipartisan commission consisting of eight legislators and eight non-legislator citizens. The commission is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
State legislatures.
Legislative redistricting methods.
Each state draws new legislative district boundaries every ten years. Every state except Nebraska has a bicameral legislative branch. Nebraska is also unique in that it has the only legislative body that is officially non-partisan. Most states must pass redistricting plans by the time of the filing deadlines for the 2022 elections. The exceptions are Virginia and New Jersey, which must pass new plans in 2021, Louisiana and Mississippi which have a 2023 deadline, and Montana, which has a 2024 deadline.
Fifteen states use independent or politician commissions to draw state legislative districts. In the other states, the legislature is ultimately charged with drawing new lines, although some states have advisory or back-up commissions. Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas have backup commissions that draw district lines if the legislature is unable to agree on new districts. Iowa, Maine, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont employ advisory commissions. In Oregon, the Secretary of State will draw the legislative districts if legislature fails to do so. In Connecticut and Maine, a 2/3 super-majority vote in each house is required to create new districts, while in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, and North Carolina, the governor cannot veto redistricting plans. The legislatures of Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia can override gubernatorial vetoes with a simple majority vote, giving governors in those states little leverage in the drawing of new district maps. In Arizona, a state with an independent nonpartisan redistricting commission, the redistricting panel selected Timmons Group, which Democrats assert has strong ties to the Republican Party.
Limits on state legislative redistricting.
The states have wide latitude in re-drawing legislative districts, but the U.S. Supreme Court case of "Reynolds v. Sims" established that states must draw districts that are "substantially equal" in population to one another. Federal court cases have established that deviation between the largest and smallest districts generally cannot be greater than ten percent, and some states have laws requiring less deviation. Court cases have also required states to redistrict every ten years, although states can redistrict more often than that depending on their own statutes and constitutional provisions. States are free to employ multi-member districts, and different districts can elect different numbers of legislators. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes protections against racial redistricting plans that would deny minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The Supreme Court case of "Thornburg v. Gingles" established a test to determine whether redistricting lines violate the Voting Rights Act.
Many states have also adopted other criteria, including compactness, contiguity, and the preservation of political subdivisions (such as cities or counties) or communities of interest. Some states, including Arizona, require the drawing of competitive districts, while other states require the nesting of state house districts within state senate districts.
Control of legislative redistricting.
State legislative redistricting plans passed by legislature.
The table shows the partisan control of states in which state legislative redistricting is enacted via a bill passed by the legislature. States in which the governor can technically veto the bill, but that veto can be overridden by a simple majority of the state legislature, are marked as "simple maj. override".
An * indicates that a 2/3 super-majority vote is required in the legislature
A ↑ indicates that one party can override a gubernatorial veto because of a super-majority in the legislature
A † indicates that the state employs an advisory commission
A ‡ indicates that the state employs a backup commission
State legislative redistricting plans passed by commission.
Eight states use independent commissions to draw state legislative districts. In Alaska, the governor appoints two individuals and the Speaker of the House, senate president, and Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court each appoint one individual to the Redistricting Board. In Arizona, Montana, and Washington, the four legislative party leaders each appoint one member to the redistricting commission, and these four individuals choose a fifth member to chair the commission. California's Citizen's Redistricting Commission consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four individuals who are not members of either party. Idaho's Commission for Reapportionment consists of six individuals appointed by the chairmen of the two largest parties (based on the most recent gubernatorial vote) and the four state legislative party leaders.
Six states use politician commissions to draw state legislative districts. Arkansas's Board of Apportionment consists of the governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. The Ohio Redistricting Commission consists of the governor, auditor, secretary of state, and four individuals appointed by the state legislative party leaders. Hawaii's Reapportionment Commission consists of eight appointees of the state legislative party leaders, and these appointees select a ninth member to chair the commission. The New Jersey Apportionment Commission consists of twelve individuals appointed by the state legislative party leaders and the two major party chairmen, with these twelve individuals choosing a thirteenth member to chair the board. Pennsylvania's redistricting commission consists of four appointees chosen by the state legislative party leaders, and these four appointees choose a fifth member to chair the commission. In Missouri, a commission is created for each legislative chamber as a result of the governor picking from lists submitted by the leaders of the two major parties.
One state, Virginia, uses a hybrid, bipartisan commission consisting of eight legislators and eight non-legislator citizens. The commission is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
Redistricting organizations and funds.
Democrats were particularly unhappy with the results of the 2012 House elections in which Democratic House candidates received more votes than Republican House candidates, but Republicans retained control of the chamber. Organizations such as the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee have established funds dedicated to helping Democrats in the 2020 round of redistricting.
Democrats also established the National Democratic Redistricting Committee to coordinate Democratic redistricting efforts. Republicans established a similar group, the National Republican Redistricting Trust.
Changes to the redistricting process since 2012.
Federal court rulings.
In the 2013 case, "Shelby County v. Holder", the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which was a coverage formula that determined which states and counties required preclearance from the Justice Department before making changes to voting laws and procedures. The formula had covered states with a history of minority voter disenfranchisement, and the preclearance procedure was designed to block discriminatory voting practices. In the 2019 case of "Rucho v. Common Cause", the Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering present nonjusticiable political questions that cannot be reviewed by federal courts.
In another 2019 case, "Department of Commerce v. New York", the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from adding a question to the 2020 Census regarding the citizenship of respondents.
State court rulings.
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered the state to draw a new congressional map on the basis of a 2010 state constitutional amendment that banned partisan gerrymandering.
In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the 2011 U.S. House of Representatives map on the grounds that it violated the state constitution; the court established new redistricting standards requiring districts to be compact and to minimize the splitting of counties and towns.
In 2019, a North Carolina state court struck down the state's legislative districts on the grounds that the district had been created with the partisan intent of favoring Republican candidates.
Ballot measures.
In 2015, Ohio voters approved a ballot measure changing the composition of the commission charged with drawing state legislative districts, adding two legislative appointees to the commission and creating rules and guidelines designed to make partisan gerrymandering more difficult. In May 2018, Ohio voters approved a proposal that modified the state's congressional redistricting processes.
In 2018, voters in Colorado and Michigan approved of a proposal to establish an independent redistricting commission for congressional and state legislative districts in their respective states. In Utah, voters approved the creation of a redistricting commission to draw congressional and state legislative districts, though the Utah state legislature retains the power to reject these maps.
In 2020, voters in Virginia approved the establishment of a bipartisan redistricting commission for both congressional and state legislative redistricting. The commission consists of eight legislators and eight non-legislator citizens, with the commission split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. In 2018, Missouri voters approved of a proposal to have a non-partisan state demographer draw state legislative districts, but in 2020 Missouri voters approved a second referendum eliminating the state demographer position and restoring the system in place prior to the 2018 referendum.


Mona Fayad

Dr. Mona Fayad (Arabic: منى فياض, born in 1950 in South Lebanon) is a francophone Lebanese intellectual, writer, political activist and university professor woman, and is one of the most prominent Shiite opponents of Hezbollah. She is a member of the Lebanese Association of Women Researchers. She is a professor of psychology at the Lebanese University. Fayad strongly condemned the assassination of her colleague and also Shiite Lukman Slim in 2021, holding Hezbollah responsible of telling the Lebanese people the truth of who was behind the crime.
Biography.
She teaches psychology at the Lebanese University in Beirut. She is a member of many scientific and intellectual organizations, and is since 2001 a founding member of the Democratic Renewal Movement headed by Nassib Lahoud, and was the member of committee until 2010, she returned to the committee during the internal elections of 19 July and was since then elected as vice-president. She became known to the public during the 2006 Lebanon-Israeli war between Hezbollah and Israel, throughout numerous articles in which she criticized the blackmail and pressures that the Shiite intellectuals went through from Hezbollah.


Langmarg

Langmarg is a meadow in Aragam Village of Jammu and Kashmir at an altitude of 3299 meters (10,823 feet) and is nearby to "Gailbal" Forest, "Daitwās" and "Pīrpal". The Langmarg meadow is famous among backpackers as the meadow basically acts as a base camp for further treks to Larmarg, Moonmarg and other meadows. The Langmarg meadow usually remains abuzz with "Shepherds" and "Gujjars" as the meadow is also used as a grazing ground and the Sheep Husbandry Department, also shows its presence by setting up camps during summers. With the onset of winter, the meadow is emptied as it snows heavily there making it almost impossible for human life to thrive.


Presidential Council for Africa

The Presidential Council for Africa (}, CPA) is an advisory body founded by French president Emmanuel Macron in August 2017. The aim of the CPA is to provide independent advice to the French president on the relationship between Africa and France, and on general issues faced by Africa. The Council is an independent body, with its membership drawn from French and African members of civil society.
Role.
The tasks of the Presidential Council for Africa consist of:
Members.
The CPA is made up of twelve members from civil society, appointed by President Macron., including representatives from fields such as entrepreneurship, health, sustainable development, sport and culture. The council maintains close to equal representation between male and female representatives.
Functioning and governance.
The CPA is an independent structure that does not appear in the organization chart of the Elysee. Members do not receive compensation. The CPA will meet in the presence of the French president on a quarterly basis. The CPA will also be called upon to meet and hear from various stakeholders (experts, committed citizens, members of diasporas) to help it formulate concrete proposals for the French President. The CPA has a dedicated office in the premises of the French Development Agency (AFD), to allow for meetings of the council, and for hosting its secretariat.


Arabat Spit

The Arabat Spit (; ) or Arabat Arrow is a barrier spit which separates a large, shallow and very salty system of lagoons named Syvash from the Sea of Azov. The spit is located between the Henichesk Strait to the north and the north-eastern shores of Crimea to the south.
Name.
The spit is commonly called the Arabat Arrow (, "Arabatska strilka"; ; , "Arabatskaya strelka") in Russia and Ukraine. The origin of this name is unknown, but dates back to the middle of the 19th century.
The Arabat part of the name presumably comes from the Arabat Fortress, a 17th-century Turkish fort at the southern end of the spit. "Arabat" derives from either Arabic "rabat" meaning a "military post" or Arabic "rabad" meaning a "suburb".
Geography and geology.
The Arabat Arrow is long, and from wide; its surface area is and thus the average width is . The spit is low and straight on the Azov Sea side, whereas its Sivash side is more convoluted. It contains two areas which are wide and have brown-clay hills; they are located and from the Henichesk Strait. The top layers of other parts of the spit are formed by sand and shells washed by the flows of the Azov Sea. Its vegetation mostly consists of various weed grasses, thorn, festuce grasses, spear grass, crambe, salsola, salicornia, Carex colchica, tamarisk, rose hip, liquorice, etc. Offshore water is shallow with the depth reaching only some from the shore. Its temperature is around in winter (near freezing), in spring and autumn, and in summer; air temperature is almost the same.
The spit is very young and was created by sedimentation processes around 1100–1200 AD.
History.
The Arabat Arrow was wild until 1835 when a road and five stations at intervals were built along it for postal delivery. Later in the 19th century, 25 rural and 3 military settlements and one village named Arabat appeared on the spit. The rural population amounted to some 235 people whose occupation was mostly fishing, farming, and salt production. The latter activity is traditional for the region due to the vast areas of shallow and very saline water in the Sivash lagoons. Salt production in the 19th century was about on the Arabat Arrow alone.
Nowadays, the spit is a health resort and its Azov Sea side is used as a beach.
While the spit is geophysically a part of the Crimean Peninsula, politically its northern half belongs to Kherson Oblast, Ukraine, while its southern portion is, "de facto" since 2014, a part of the Russian Republic of Crimea. The entirety of the spit was occupied during the annexation, although Russia withdrew its forces from the northern Kherson side in December 2014.
Populated places.
The rural communities of Henicheska Hirka, Shchaslyvtseve and Strilkove are located in the northern section of the spit, within the Kherson Oblast. The community of Solyane is located in the southern part of the spit, administered as part of the Republic of Crimea.
Tourism.
Arabat Spit is a popular place for summer vacation among Ukrainians because of the warm water of the Sea of Azov. There are a variety of hotels and guesthouses on the first line of the sea. Arabat Spit is a popular spot among kitesurfers and windsurfers.


Administrative divisions of Chad

The administrative divisions of Chad have often changed since 1900, when the territory was first created by France as part of its colonial empire, with the name "Territoire Militaire des pays et protectorats du Tchad". The first subdivision took place in 1910, when 9 circumscriptions were made, named "départements" (departments) in 1935 and "régions" (regions) in 1947. As for the regions, they were further divided in districts.
In 1960, immediately before independence, the "régions" became "préfectures" (prefectures), and the districts instead "sous-prefectures" (sub-prefectures). The prefectures were in origin 11, later on raising to 14. In 1999 they were modified in 28 departments; this was ultimately changed in 2002, when 18 regions replaced them. As for the regions, they are divided in departments, while the latter are divided in sub-prefectures. After a series of splits in 2008 the number of regions increased to 22. In 2012 Ennedi Region was split into Ennedi-Est and Ennedi-Ouest, producing the current 23 regions.
History.
On September 5, 1900, a decree signed by the French President Émile Loubet officially created the "Territoire militaire des pays et protectorats du Tchad" as part of the growing French colonial empire. The new territory was placed under the command of a Commissioner who answered to the High Commissioner of the French Congo (called French Equatorial Africa (AEF) after 1910), of which Chad was a circumscription.
In 1906 Chad was merged with the Oubangui-Chari, becoming an autonomous territory within the "Oubangui-Chari-Tchad" colony, suppressed in 1916. In 1920 Chad was placed on an equal standing with the other AEF colonies (i. e. Gabon, Oubangui-Chari and Middle Congo).
It was only in 1958, when Chad was granted territorial autonomy, that the country was separated from the AEF. Two years later Chad was to come full independence under the government of François Tombalbaye and of the Chadian Progressive Party.
1910–19 circumscriptions.
The first Governor-General of French Equatorial Africa, Martial Merlin, built in 1910 for all the colonies he administered a two levels structure. Chad was divided in 9 "circonscriptions" (circumscriptions), with Fort-Lamy (today N'Djamena) as capital; two years later, as an underdivision of the regions, the "subdivisions" were introduced. The Mayo-Kebbi circumscription disappeared in 1911 when the left bank of the Logone River was ceded to the German colony of Kamerun as part of the exchange for the French protectorate over Morocco. the area was retaken by France in World War I, and some years later, in 1922, the circumscription was restored and given back to Chad. On the other side Moyen-Chari was part of Oubangui-Chari from 1925 to 1933.
In 1914 a new circumscription was added with Borkou-Ennedi, renamed Borkou-Ennedi-Tibesti in 1930 when the Tibesti was passed from Niger to Chad.
1934 departments.
Centralization.
In 1934 all the AEF was the object of a major administrative reorganization, known as Renard reform after the Governor-General Edouard Renard. Meant to cut down the maintainment costs and transform the AEF in a unitary colony divided in 4 regions. Chad was placed under a "commandant de région" who answered to the Governor-Delegate in Bangui, who instead was under the Governor-General in Brazzaville.
The circumscriptions of Chad took the name of departments and many of them were merged, while two departments, Logone (united with the Mayo-Kebbi) and Chari-Bangoran (Moyen-Chari and N'Délé) were separated from Chad and placed directly under Bangui's administration.
Decentralization.
The radicality of these centralization measures proved themselves unsustainable, causing their reversion on the return to the previous structure of the AEF in 1936. In that year Logone and Moyen-Chari were returned to Chad while both Kanem-Batha and Chari-Baguirmi were split restoring the original 10 subdivisions. In 1944 the departments were brought to 9, when Bas-Chari and Baguirmi were merged back to recreate Chari-Baguirmi.
In 1937 Chad was made fully independent from Bangui but the administrator was given the lesser rank of "commandant". The following year his rank was increased to "governeur" (governor), reestablishing a full parity among the AEF colonies.
This is the situation of Chad on December 31, 1945, concerning departments and subdivisions:


Fredonian Rebellion

The Fredonian Rebellion (December 21, 1826 – January 23, 1827) was the first attempt by Anglo settlers in Texas to secede from Mexico. The settlers, led by Empresario Haden Edwards, declared independence from Mexican Texas and created the Republic of Fredonia near Nacogdoches. The short-lived republic encompassed the land the Mexican government had granted to Edwards in 1825 and included areas that had been previously settled. Edwards's actions soon alienated the established residents, and the increasing hostilities between them and settlers recruited by Edwards led Victor Blanco of the Mexican government to revoke Edwards's contract.
In late December 1826, a group of Edwards's supporters took control of the region by arresting and removing from office several municipality officials affiliated with the established residents. Supporters declared their independence from Mexico. Although the nearby Cherokee tribe initially signed a treaty to support the new republic because a prior agreement with the Mexican government negotiated by Chief Richard Fields was ignored, overtures from Mexican authorities and respected Empresario Stephen F. Austin convinced tribal leaders to repudiate the rebellion. On January 31, 1827, a force of over 100 Mexican soldiers and 275 Texian Militia marched into Nacogdoches to restore order. Haden Edwards and his brother Benjamin Edwards fled to the United States. Chief Richard Fields was killed by his own tribe. A local merchant was arrested and sentenced to death but later paroled.
The rebellion led Mexican President Guadalupe Victoria to increase the military presence in the area. As a result, several hostile tribes in the area halted their raids on settlements and agreed to a peace treaty. The Comanche abided by this treaty for many years. Fearing that through the rebellion, the United States hoped to gain control of Texas, the Mexican government severely curtailed immigration to the region from the US. The new immigration law was bitterly opposed by colonists and caused increasing dissatisfaction with Mexican rule. Some historians consider the Fredonian Rebellion to be the beginning of the Texas Revolution. In the words of one historian, the rebellion was "premature, but it sparked the powder for later success".
Background.
After winning independence in 1821, several of Spain's colonies in the New World joined together to create a new country, Mexico. The country divided itself into several states, and the area known as Mexican Texas became part of the border state Coahuila y Tejas. To assist in governing the large area, the state created several departments; all of Texas was included in the Department of Béxar. The department was further subdivided into municipalities, which were each governed by an alcalde, similar to a modern-day mayor. A large portion of East Texas, ranging from the Sabine to the Trinity Rivers and from the Gulf Coast to the Red River, became part of the municipality of Nacogdoches. Most residents of the municipality were Spanish-speaking families who had occupied their land for generations. An increasing number were English-speaking residents who had immigrated illegally during the Mexican War of Independence. Many of the immigrants were adventurers who had arrived as part of various military filibustering groups, which had attempted to create independent republics within Texas during Spanish rule.
For better control of the sparsely populated border region, in 1824 the Mexican federal government passed the General Colonization Law to allow legal immigration into Texas. Under the law, each state would set its own requirements for immigration. After some debate, on March 24, 1825, Coahuila y Tejas authorized a system granting land to empresarios, who would each recruit settlers for their particular colony. In addition, for every 100 families an empresario settled in Texas, they would receive 23,000 acres of land to cultivate and settle on. During the state government's deliberations, many would-be empresarios congregated in Mexico to lobby for land grants. Among them was Haden Edwards, an American land speculator known for his quick temper and aggressiveness. Despite his abrasiveness, Edwards was granted a colonization contract on April 14 allowing him to settle 800 families in East Texas. The contract contained standard language requiring Edwards to recognize all pre-existing Spanish and Mexican land titles in his grant area, to raise a militia to protect the settlers in the area, and to allow the state land commissioner to certify all deeds awarded.
Edwards's colony encompassed the land from the Navasota River to 20 leagues west of the Sabine River, and from 20 leagues north of the Gulf of Mexico to 15 leagues north of the town of Nacogdoches. To the west and north of the colony were lands controlled by several Native tribes that had recently been driven out of the United States. The southern boundary was a colony overseen by Stephen F. Austin, the son of the first empresario in Texas. East of Edwards's grant was the former Sabine Free State, a neutral zone, which had been essentially lawless for several decades. The boundaries of the new colony and the municipality of Nacogdoches partially overlapped, leading to uncertainty over who had jurisdiction over which function. The majority of the established settlers lived outside the eastern boundary of the Edwards colony.
Prelude.
Edwards arrived in Nacogdoches in August 1825. Mistakenly believing that he had the authority to determine the validity of existing land claims, Edwards demanded written proof of ownership in September or the land would be forfeited and sold at auction. His action was at least partially driven by prejudice; Edwards scorned those who were poorer or of a different race. By removing less-prosperous settlers, he could assign their lands to wealthy planters, like himself, from the Southern United States.
Very few of the English-speaking residents had valid titles. Those who had not arrived as filibusters had been duped by fraudulent land speculators. Most of the Spanish-speaking landowners had lived on grants made to their families 70 or more years previously and were unable to produce any paperwork. Anticipating the potential conflict between the new empresario and the long-time residents of the area, the acting "alcalde" of the municipality, Luis Procela, and the municipality clerk, Jose Antonio Sepulveda, began validating old Spanish and Mexican land titles, a function legally assigned to the state land commissioner. In response, Edwards accused the men of forging deeds, further angering the residents.
By December 1825, Edwards had recruited 50 families to emigrate from the United States. As required under his contract, Edwards organized a Texian Militia company open to his colonists and established residents. When militia members elected Sepulveda as their captain, Edwards nullified the results and proclaimed himself head of the militia company. After that debacle, Edwards, acting outside his authority, called for elections for a new alcalde. Two men were nominated for the position—Edwards's son-in-law, Chichester Chaplin, seen as the representative for the newly-arrived immigrants, and Samuel Norris, an American who had married the daughter of a long-time resident and was sympathetic to the more-established residents. After Chaplin's victory, many settlers alleged vote-stacking in an appeal to Juan Antonio Saucedo, the political chief of the Department of Béxar. In March, Saucedo overturned the election results and proclaimed Norris the winner. Edwards refused to recognize Norris's authority.
Shortly after Saucedo's ruling, Edwards left to recruit more settlers from the United States, leaving his younger brother, Benjamin, in charge of the colony. Benjamin could not maintain stability in the colony, and the situation deteriorated rapidly. A vigilante group of earlier settlers harassed many newcomers, and Benjamin made several complaints to state authorities. Unhappy with his tone and the increasing tension, Mexican authorities revoked the land grant in October and instructed the Edwards brothers to leave Mexico. Rumors that Haden Edwards had returned to the United States to raise an army and not just to recruit settlers likely influenced the government action. Unwilling to abandon his $50,000 (about $ as of ) investment in the colony, Haden Edwards rejoined his brother in Nacogdoches in late October, continuing their business affairs despite the cancellation of his colonization contract.
Conflict.
In October, Norris ruled that Edwards had improperly taken land from an existing settler to give to a new immigrant. Norris evicted the immigrant, angering many of the colonists. Later that month, another new immigrant was arrested and ordered to leave the country after refusing to purchase a merchant license before trading with the Indian tribes. On November 22, 1826, local Texian Militia colonel Martin Parmer and 39 other Edwards colonists entered Nacogdoches and arrested Norris, Sepulveda, and the commander of the small Mexican garrison, charging them with oppression and corruption. Haden Edwards was also arrested for violating his expulsion order but was immediately paroled, possibly as a ploy to disguise his own involvement in the plot. A kangaroo court found the other men guilty, removed them from their positions, and banned them from ever holding another public office. The court disbanded after appointing a temporary "alcalde". The actions benefitted Parmer personally; several weeks earlier, after Parmer killed a man in a dispute, Norris had issued a warrant for Parmer's arrest. With Norris removed from office, the arrest warrant was voided.
Throughout the fall, Benjamin Edwards had tried to gather support from the Edwards colonists for a potential armed revolt against Mexican authority. Largely unsuccessful, he approached the nearby Cherokee tribe for assistance. Several years earlier, the tribe had applied for title to the lands they that occupied in northern East Texas. They were promised but never given a deed from the Mexican authorities. Benjamin Edwards offered the tribe clear title to all of Texas north of Nacogdoches in exchange for armed support for his plans.
On December 16, the Edwards brothers invaded Nacogdoches with only 30 settlers, seizing one building in town, the Old Stone Fort. On December 21, they declared the former Edwards colony to be a new republic, named Fredonia. Within hours of the announcement, the Fredonians signed a peace treaty with the Cherokee, represented by Chief Richard Fields and John Dunn Hunter. Fields and Hunter claimed to represent an additional 23 other tribes and promised to provide 400 warriors. In recognition of the agreement, above the Old Stone Fort flew a new flag containing two stripes (one red, one white) representing the two races. Inscribed on the banner was the motto, "Independence, Liberty, and Justice." Haden Edwards also sent messengers to Louisiana to request aid from the United States military, which refused to intervene. Another emissary sent to invite Stephen F. Austin and his colonists to join the rebellion garnered the rebuke: "You are deluding yourselves and this delusion will ruin you."
Edwards's actions disturbed many of his colonists because of their loyalty to their adopted country or their fear of his alliance with the Cherokee. Mexican authorities were also concerned with the Cherokee alliance, and both Peter Ellis Bean, the Mexican Indian agent, and Saucedo, the political chief, began negotiations with Fields. They explained to the Cherokee that the tribe had not followed proper procedures to attain a land grant and promised that if they reapplied through official channels, the Mexican government would honor their land request. Such arguments and a planned Mexican military response convinced many Cherokee to repudiate their treaty with Edwards.
On news of the November arrest of the "alcalde", the Mexican government began preparing to retaliate. On December 11, Lieutenant Colonel Mateo Ahumada, the military commander in Texas, marched from San Antonio de Béxar with 110 members of the infantry and initially stopped in Austin's colony to assess the loyalty of his settlers. On January 1, Austin announced to his colonists that "infatuated madmen at Nacogdoches have declared independence." Much of his colony immediately volunteered to assist in quelling the rebellion. When the Mexican army left for Nacogdoches on January 22, they were joined by 250 Texian Militia from Austin's colony.
Impatient with the army response time, Norris led 80 men to retake the Old Stone Fort. Although Parmer had fewer than 20 supporters with him, his men routed Norris's force in less than ten minutes. On January 31, Bean, accompanied by 70 Texian Militia from Austin's colony, rode into Nacogdoches. By now, Parmer and Edwards had learned that the Cherokee had abandoned any intention of waging war against Mexico. When not a single Cherokee warrior had appeared to reinforce the revolt, Edwards and his supporters fled. Bean pursued them to the Sabine River, but most, including both Edwards brothers, safely crossed into the United States. Ahumada and his soldiers, accompanied by political chief Saucedo, entered Nacogdoches on February 8 to restore order.
Although the Cherokee had not raised arms against Mexico, their treaty with the Fredonian revolutionaries caused Mexican authorities to question the tribe's loyalty. To demonstrate loyalty to Mexico, the Cherokee council ordered both Fields and Hunter to be executed. Under tribal law, certain offenses such as aiding an enemy of the tribe were punishable by death. By sentencing Fields and Hunter to death for that reason, the Cherokee affirmed that Edwards and his cohorts were their enemies. Both men fled but were soon captured and executed. When the executions were reported to Mexican authorities on February 28, the commandant general of the Eastern Interior Provinces, Anastasio Bustamante, praised the Cherokee for their prompt action.
Bustamante ultimately offered a general amnesty for all who participated in the conflict except for Haden and Benjamin Edwards, Martin Parmer, and Adolphus Sterne, a local merchant who had provided supplies to the rebel force. Like the Edwards brothers, Parmer escaped into Louisiana. Sterne remained and was sentenced to death for treason but was paroled if he swore allegiance to Mexico and never again took up arms against the Mexican government.
Aftermath.
The rebellion changed the dynamic between settlers and local tribes. Although the Cherokee repudiated the rebellion, their initial support caused many settlers to distrust the tribe. The rebellion and subsequent Mexican army response also changed the settlers' relationships with other tribes. In preceding years, the Tawakoni and Waco tribes, allied with various Comanche bands, had regularly raided Texas settlements. Fearing that the tribes, like the Cherokee, could ally with other groups against Mexican control, Bustamante began preparations to attack and weaken all hostile tribes in East Texas. On learning of the imminent invasion, in April 1827 the Towakoni and Waco sued for peace. In June, the two tribes signed a peace treaty with Mexico, promising to halt all raids against Mexican settlers. The Towakoni then assisted their allies, the Penateka Comanche, in reaching a treaty with Mexico. When Bustamante's troops left Texas later that year, the Towakoni and Waco resumed their raiding. The Comanche tribe upheld their treaty for many years and often assisted Mexican soldiers in recovering livestock stolen by the other tribes.
The failed rebellion also affected Mexican relations with the United States. Even before the revolt, many Mexican officials had worried that the United States was plotting to gain control of Texas. Once the rebellion came to light, officials suspected that Edwards had been an agent of the United States. To help protect the region, a new, larger, garrison was established in Nacogdoches, to be commanded by Colonel Jose de las Piedras. As a direct result of Edwards's actions, the Mexican government authorized an extensive expedition, conducted by General Manuel de Mier y Terán, to inspect the Texas settlements and to recommend a future course of action. Mier y Teran's reports led to the Law of April 6, 1830, which severely restricted immigration into Texas. Within Texas the laws were widely denounced both by recent immigrants and by native-born Mexicans, and led to further armed conflict between Mexican soldiers and Texas residents.
Some historians regard the Fredonian Rebellion as the beginning of the Texas Revolution. Historian W.B. Bates remarked that the revolt was "premature, but it sparked the powder for later success." The people of Nacogdoches played instrumental roles in other rebellions in Texas over the next few years; in 1832, they expelled Piedras and his troops from Nacogdoches, and many Nacogdoches residents participated in the Texas Revolution.


Surveyor Generals Corner

Surveyor Generals Corner (or Surveyor-Generals Corner) is a remote point where the Australian state boundaries of South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory meet.
These boundaries meet at the easternmost point of the 127-metre section of the Western Australian border with the Northern Territory border which runs east–west along the 26th parallel south latitude to meet the western boundary of the South Australian border.
History.
In 1922 an agreement was signed between the prime minister W. M. Hughes, the acting premier for South Australia, Sir John George Bice, and the premier of Western Australia, Sir James Mitchell to set the border along the 129th meridian east longitude and defined the boundary by lines drawn north and south through the centre of the Deakin Obelisk, erected in 1926 near Deakin, Western Australia and the Kimberley Obelisk, erected in 1927, near Argyle Downs, in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia. In 1963 when the survey on the ground was continued it was realised that there was no possibility of these lines meeting exactly at the 26th parallel south.
In June 1968 two monuments were erected at the junction of the boundaries approximately 127 metres apart running east–west along the 26th parallel south. The most easterly monument common to all three jurisdictions was named Surveyor Generals Corner at the suggestion of the Director of National Mapping. The site is not named after a single Surveyor-General, because there were a number of them present as follows.
On 4th June 1968, two concrete pillars were completed to mark Surveyor-Generals Corner in the presence V.T. O'Brien, Acting Director of Lands, N.T., P.J. Wells, Acting Surveyor-General, N.T.;H.A. Bailey, Surveyor-General, S.A.;Harold Camm, Surveyor-General, W.A.; and B.M. Allwright, Surveyor, N.T.
Access.
From 7 March 2003, access to the area was restricted following a decision by the Irrunytju (Wingellina) Community in whose traditional land the Surveyor Generals Corner is situated. Access to the area is limited to guided tours and visitors require a special permit in addition to the standard Great Central Road transit permit.
The nearest settlement is the Aboriginal community of Kalka in South Australia, situated on the Gunbarrel Highway just a few kilometres to the south.
There are three occurrences of New Year's Eve at Surveyor Generals Corner (also in Cameron Corner and Poeppel Corner), because it is located at the intersection of three time zones.


Treaty of Leipzig

The Treaty of Leipzig or Partition of Leipzig (German "Leipziger Teilung") was signed on 11 November 1485 between Elector Ernest of Saxony and his younger brother Albert III, the sons of Elector Frederick II of Saxony from the House of Wettin. The agreement perpetuated the division of the Wettin lands into a Saxon and a Thuringian part, which in the long run obstructed the further development of a Central German hegemonic power in favour of Brandenburg-Prussia.
History.
In 1423 Ernest's and Albert's grandfather, Margrave Frederick IV of Meissen had received the Saxon Electorate from the hands of the Luxembourg emperor Sigismund. The Electorate — formerly the Duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg — together with the incorporated Margraviate of Meissen and the Thuringian landgraviate formed the united Wettin lands. After the death of Frederick in 1464, his lands were ruled jointly by his two sons, until 1485, when they were partitioned between them.
In the 1485 partition the elder, Ernest, as hereditary Elector of Saxony, necessarily received the Electoral lands around Wittenberg. The rest were partitioned on the "I'll cut, you choose" basis, with Ernest partitioning the lands into two sets, and Albert choosing one set for himself. Albert chose the eastern territory of the former Margraviate of Meissen, while Ernest acquired most of the Thuringian regions in the west. Ernest was said to be disappointed by this outcome, as he had hoped to rule the lands around Meissen, which had been ruled by the House of Wettin since the 12th century, rather than the newly acquired lands of southern Thuringia.
Elector Ernest established the town of Wittenberg as the capital of the Saxon electorate and proclaimed himself Landgrave of Thuringia. Duke Albert III established Meissen as the centre of the Albertine Saxon duchy and deemed himself Margrave of Meissen.
In the course of the Protestant Reformation the Ernestine and Albertine branches of the Wettin dynasty found themselves on opposing sides of the 1546/47 Schmalkaldic War. As an ally of victorious Emperor Charles V of Habsburg, the Albertine Duke Maurice of Saxony gained the Wittenberg territory and the electoral dignity, after his defeated Ernestine cousin Elector John Frederick I signed the Capitulation of Wittenberg. From that event, the Albertine line in the former Meissen Margraviate ruled the Electorate and later Kingdom of Saxony. The descendants of John Frederick I only retained the Thuringian territory which furthermore split into numerous Ernestine duchies.
When after World War I the House of Wettin was deposed, the Albertine Saxon Kingdom was succeeded by the Free State of Saxony, while the four former Ernestine duchies formed, along with four minor states, the Free State of Thuringia following a referendum in which Saxe-Coburg (minus Gotha), however, voted to join Bavaria.


Atabapo River

Atabapo River is a river of Venezuela and Colombia. It forms the international boundary between the two countries for much of its length. It is part of the Orinoco River basin.


Nigali valley

Nigali or the Nigali valley (, "nigalis khevi"), also known, through a subsequent metathesis, as Ligani (ლიგანი) or Livana (ლივანა; ) is a historical district on the lower course of the Çoruh or Chorokhi river, currently divided between Turkey and Georgia.
History.
The land known as "Nigal" first appears as one of the districts of Colchis in the 7th-century Armenian geography attributed to Ananias of Shirak. In the 8th century, Nigali became part of an appanage of the Georgian Bagratid family. It was bounded by Adjara on the north-east, Shavsheti on the east, and Klarjeti on the south. The medieval Georgian sources also make mention of Niali, which is likely a corruption of Nigali. The early 18th-century Georgian scholar Prince Vakhushti refers to it as Ligani and locates the district on either bank of the Chorokhi as far as Art'vani (now Artvin). In 1530, the area was conquered from Georgians by the Ottoman Empire, which administered it as the "kaza" or "sanjak" of Livâne. It had the sub-district of Maçahel administratively dependent on it.
In 1878, Nigali was part of the territory ceded by the Ottomans to the Russian Empire in the Treaty of Berlin. It was included in the Artvin circuit ("uchastok") of the Batum Oblast. Following World War I (1914–1918) and the short-lived independence of Georgia (1918–1921), Nigali was divided between Turkey and recently Sovietized Georgia in accordance with the 1921 treaties of Moscow and Kars.
Current division.
Currently, the Turkish portion of Nigali comprises parts of the Borçka, Murgul, and Artvin districts of the Artvin Province. The Georgian-speaking element is still present in this area, but knowledge of the Georgian language is weakening among the younger generation. The Georgian portion consists of only 9 villages administered as part of the Khelvachauri Municipality of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara.


United States Congress/Virgin Islands


Administrative divisions of Somaliland


Wakura

Wakura is the village located in Ganderbal district, Jammu and Kashmir, India. In 2013 it was given Tehsil status with Tehsil headquarters located in the same village.
Geography.
Wakura is located 12 km towards west from district headquarters in Ganderbal, 20 km from union territory capital Srinagar. Wakura is divided into two Patwar Halqas viz; wakura and rakh-i-rabitar. Dab irrigation canal flows through the village dividing the village almost into two parts. Another irrigation canal called locally as Pout Kul also flows but its flow is restricted through inhabited area of the village. Several springs here are known for their water quality but some springs have disappeared over the course of time due to garbage dumping.
Demographics.
The population of Wakura is 5,625. Males constitute 51% of the total population while female constitute 49% of the total population. Agriculture and Horticulture are the mainstay of the population. Urdu is the official language here, people also speak their native language (Kashmiri) as well as English. The population of Wakura consists of Muslims which are in majority and some Hindu families. On the administrative level Wakura is divided into two Panchayat Halqas viz; Wakura-A and Wakura-B.
Reduced Level.
The Reduced Level of the area is 1619 m above mean sea level.


Munawar Pass

Munawar Pass is a mountain pass located in Pir Panjal Range in Indian Kashmir. It lies in the north of Pir ki Gali and overlooks the town of Rajouri.
Munawar Pass witnessed some of the heaviest fighting during Operation Gibraltar in 1965 and was held by a Pakistani guerrilla force under Major Munawar Awan, who had also captured Indian Army Garrison at Rajouri. Munawar and his actions became a folk tale in the area and the pass was named after him by locals, a name it retains to date. He assembled the locals, armed them and established pickets all along the Mehndar-Rajouri area, because of his intense activity with his Ghaznavi Force, a head money worth 1 lackh by Local Indian Administration was placed on him; however, he managed to escape the Indians and withdrew back into Pakistan with his force at the start of 1965 Indo–Pak war.


Baramulla Polytechnic College

The Government Polytechnic College, Baramulla, otherwise Baramulla Polytechnic College, is one of the Government polytechnics of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India, which has been established in 2012 under Direct Central Assistance with the Prime Minister's special scheme aimed at producing a large number of trained technical personnel. The polytechnic is located in the Kanispora area of Baramulla in Jammu and Kashmir state. The polytechnic teaches three-year diploma courses in electrical engineering and architecture. Er. Syed Shabir A Rufai has been the pioneering Principal of the Polytechnic College. The first batch of the Polytechnic came out in the year 2015.


Barak, Kyrgyzstan

Barak is a Kyrgyz village that is surrounded by the territory of Uzbekistan. Its "de facto" status as one of the world's 91 current international enclaves began in 1999. Administratively it is part of Kara-Suu District in Kyrgyzstan's Osh Region and is encircled by the Andijan Region of Uzbekistan. Its population was 627 in 2009.
The small town, located in the Fergana Valley, was later estimated to consist of 153 families (approximately 1,000 residents). It is located about 4 km northwest of the road from Osh (Kyrgyzstan) to Khodjaabad (Uzbekistan) near the Kyrgyz–Uzbek border in the direction toward Andijan (). This places it approximately 1.5 km from the Uzbek/Kyrgyz border, near Ak-Tash village.
Border dispute.
Kyrgyzstan's 1991 pre-independence border is the "de jure" international border, but much of it is hotly disputed with its neighbors. In August 1999, the area around Barak was occupied by Uzbekistan, cutting it off from Kyrgyz territory. Uzbek forces dug up and blockaded the road to Ak-Tash, while also seizing large areas of Kyrgyz land that allegedly had been loaned in the Soviet era but never returned. They entrenched themselves within much of Kyrgyz border territory and refused to leave. Barak became a "de facto" enclave only 1.5 km from the shifted main border. Four Uzbek enclaves and Barak are major sticking points in border delimitation talks, and disputes center on the areas of Barak, Sokh, Gava and Gavasay (stream). In 2011, many villagers asked the government to re-settle them within the main border. Kyrgyz officials fear, however, that if the people leave Barak then Kyrgyzstan will not be able to keep its enclave.
Effect on villagers.
Barak had a population in 2011 of 153 families and over 1000 people. The enclave is surrounded by Uzbekistan. "[In Barak] there's a village school, there's a [cultural center] and there's little shop. But there are no post offices and no government buildings or any other type of employment. There is no bank. Barak is tiny."
Barak became an enclave when Uzbekistan forces blockaded the road leading to Ak-Tash, the nearest Kyrgyz village and the border connection on which it depends. In the following three years, border controls were greatly increased, with a daily routine of exhaustive border checks for residents. In February 2003, villagers went to Osh to protest the Uzbek border restrictions. There, a chance meeting with Prime Minister Nikolai Tanayev led to Uzbekistan removing the concrete blockade and re-opening the road. The following month, officials of the two states signed a protocol to ease restrictions on Barak residents. In practice, however, nothing changed to simplify procedures for their entry and exit.
Soviet-era borders.
Border demarcations that were once of little significance are now affecting the lives of ordinary people in dramatic ways. The USSR's national-territorial delimitation of 1924–1927 was the first chapter of an ongoing story of twentieth-century border-moving, which continued beyond the Soviet Union's collapse.
Although the Soviet era saw numerous demarcation commissions, none fully resolved questions regarding isolated territorial enclaves, temporary land leases that were never returned, unpaid rent agreements, and conflicting maps showing the borders running in different places. Soviet border commissions in the 1920s and 1950s failed to finish their work. The map-makers of this era likely never thought their lines would one day be international borders. Government planning projects spilled freely across internal borders. Even when land rental contracts existed, rents often went uncollected and the land unreturned upon contact expiration.
Borders in the Fergana Valley in Soviet times bore little relevance to everyday life. Hence, later demarcation of its international borders has been complex. As a result, today large areas of land officially claimed by one state in the Fergana Valley are being farmed by citizens of the other states, an example of which lies along the Batken-Isfara (Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan) border, where over 1300 hectares of land are disputed.
A similar situation exists along the Uzbekistan-Kyrgyzstan border, where before 1991 the Uzbek SSR had rented large amounts of land for agricultural and industrial use. Despite renting for fixed terms, the Uzbek SSR often never returned the land nor paid rent, accompanied by the inevitable growth of settlements over time. For example, in 1999 a Kyrgyz deputy claimed to have a copy of a 1960s agreement renting 45,000 hectares to the Uzbek SSR, which should have terminated in 1980. Kyrgyzstan also has some territories that it leased for cattle raising during the Soviet period and which it has not given up.
Complications at independence.
In 1991, independence presented a complicated and uncertain geography. The Fergana Valley republics were heir to decades-long patterns of land use that freely transgressed boundaries. Those boundaries had never been fully demarcated, and different maps showed different borders.
The effects of Soviet era planning were not felt in the years immediately following independence, apart from a brief crisis in 1993. Daily cross-border life in the valley continued almost uninterrupted, with large borderland areas being used by the people of neighboring states. This occurred both through illegal squatting and pre-existing fixed-term territorial leases. For example, Uzbekistan's Marhamat region was using 6885 hectares of land from Osh's Aravon region, the two of which share a border of only about 125 km (still in dispute in 2011). Until 1998 it still was possible to travel across state boundaries almost as though they were internal ones. However, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan were slowly drifting apart through the 1990s as the two republics became differentiated.
Conflict in 1999.
Major conflict erupted in 1999 that in part centered on Uzbekistan's unilateral demarcation of its border and its alleged seizure of large areas of Kyrgyz agricultural land loaned to Uzbekistan for temporary usage during the Soviet period but never returned.
“On February 13, 1999, Uzbekistan's president, Islam Karimov, confirmed that the major Osh-Andijon cross-border bus service, along with many other routes in the Ferghana Valley, had been suspended. … Closure of the border was accelerated three days later when a carefully-orchestrated series of bomb blasts rocked the Uzbekistani capital Tashkent, killing 16[.] … Uzbekistan immediately sealed its border, ... security was dramatically tightened up … and special units were deployed to sensitive border areas. New control posts were built and existing facilities upgraded, and in many places crossings were closed, roads dug up, and bridges demolished. … The effects of these unilateral measures were keenly felt by Kyrgyzstanis."
In the summer the neighboring Batken region of Kyrgyzstan was invaded by guerrillas of the so-called Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). Following this, the opposition press continued to carry numerous reports of Uzbekistan's border policies encroaching onto Kyrgyzstan. In August 1999, the area around Barak was occupied by Uzbekistan, cutting it off from Kyrgyz territory. Uzbek forces dug up and blockaded the road to Ak-Tash.
Throughout 1999, the Kyrgyzstani government did not physically attempt to contest the new border and concomitant control posts that Uzbekistan established. Rather, Kyrgyzstan sought to keep the border open to trade, while insisting on entering into talks to delimit the border. However, Uzbekistan quickly clamped down on crossings that it did not authorize. The unilateral restrictions massively obstructed the movement of both goods and people. Nevertheless, IMU extremists found ways to operate over the border throughout 1999. Uzbek troops and border guards began excursions into Kyrgyzstan to suppress the extremists. Although Kyrgyz authorities condemned the territorial violations, Uzbekistan continued them and stepped up its threats by mining the border and constructing barriers and watchtowers, sometimes deep within Kyrgyz territory. Uzbek forces entrenched themselves on this territory and refused to leave.
After the end of the IMU guerilla fighting in Batken, a new development emerged that threatened to spark an even graver crisis between the two states than the events in the spring. Not only did Uzbekistan control the border, it began a unilateral demarcation of its border in the Fergana Valley. This did not go unnoticed by Kyrgyzstani journalists and politicians, who persistently objected and accused Uzbekistan of advancing border checkpoints along roads into Kyrgyz territory. Around the start of October and onward, Uzbekistan began erecting a "2-meter high barbed-wire perimeter fence along large stretches of the Valley boundary, and mining other stretches. This led to widespread accusations within Kyrgyzstan that Uzbekistan was actually fencing off tens of thousands of hectares of Kyrgyzstani land."
Kyrgyz-Uzbek delimitation talks.
By February 2000, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan had begun to work jointly to demarcate the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border; however, progress was very slow. One year later, a meeting between the two countries' prime ministers ended with a promise to meet again to discuss border demarcation, which had become the thorniest issue in bilateral relations. About 150 spots along the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border were disputed. A renewed effort resulted in a signed memorandum which would have given Uzbekistan a land corridor running the 40 kilometres along the Sokh River to its enclave of Sokh. In exchange for that corridor, Kyrgyzstan was to receive a smaller corridor to Barak." The memorandum caused political backlash in Kyrgyzstan and was never implemented.
By February 2002, only 209 out of 1,400 kilometres had been jointly demarcated, although 994 kilometres had been studied. But the most controversial points remained: in the Osh and Batken regions, 406 kilometres were waiting to be studied by the joint commission. "The work also revealed the main disputed areas as being the enclaves of Barak and Sokh and the areas of Gava and Gavasay. Regarding these sites, the positions of the parties remained far from convergence."
According to a 2004 report by the International Crisis Group (ICG), border demarcation negotiations had been charged with tension. Talks had stalled over approximately 50 contested locations along the border between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
In 2006, the process of delimitation had been under way for six years, with agreement reached on only 993 kilometers of the state border, which was 1375 kilometers long. The remaining 382 kilometers of the state border were not on existing maps and therefore remained subject to conflict and mutual distrust.
In 2009, a report stated, "a lack of funding has greatly hindered border demarcation efforts. … Complex terrain and conflicting Soviet-era maps – printed at a time when defining the borders was not a pressing issue – present the toughest obstacle to delimitation." Nevertheless, an intergovernmental commission on the delimitation and demarcation of the border held its first meeting after a five-year break on 29 December 2010.
In 2013 the two states' prime ministers were reported to be discussing the situation in the Barak enclave. Barak was not the only enclave that was a sticking point in negotiations. The Uzbek enclave of Sokh and three other Uzbek enclaves inside Kyrgyzstan were also major problems. Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan had delimited 1058 kilometers of the border (out of a total length of 1378.44 kilometers), which accounts for over 70 percent of the total length. By early 2014, in the ten years after 2004, talks still had not resulted in the delimitation of nearly 50 border sections with about 300 km length.
Talks resumed in 2018 and the two countries reached an agreement to exchange Barak for land in Uzbekistan's Andijon region near the Kyrgyz village of Birleshken.


Gulshan-e-Kabir

Gulshan-e-Kabir is a village in Ghanche district Baltistan approximately 40 km from Khaplu town.
History.
The old name of Gulshan-e-Kabir is Pharawa but the still older name is Ralta Khonbu. "Ralta Khonbu" was known for its beautiful and lush green fields and meadows. The village was struck by a powerful flood coming from the mountains due to the breakage of a huge lake. This resulted in the total devastation of "Ralta Khonbu"; the once plain village with beautiful orchards and lush green fields was now covered by mud and mighty rocks. The surrounding villagers noticed that there was no trees or greenery left in "Ralta Khonbu" so they started calling her "Phara" (meaning bald in balti language). "Phara" with excessive usage became "Pharawa"; a name the villagers never liked. "Pharawa" and "Ralta Khonbu" were equally used for some time but "Pharawa" dominated and was later registered in all the government records by the Dogra Rule so the name became a permanent identity for "Ralta Khonbu".
Later in 1992 a group of youth from "Pharawa" residing in Karachi founded an organization by the name "Anjuman-e-Falah-o-Behbud" and their top priority was to give a new name to the village. Different names including the ancient name of "Ralta Khonbu" were taken up as a choice but finally they agreed upon the name "Gulshan-e-Ameer-e-Kabir", shortly known as "Gulshan-e-Kabir", named after the great Islamic saint and missionary from Iran, "Ameer Kabir Syyed Ali Hamadni" whose intense preachings converted the villagers form Buddhism to Islam. The new name was warmly welcomed and accepted by the villagers and now this beautiful village in the middle of high rising mountains of Karakorum is known as "Gulshan-e-Kabir"(the garden of "Ameer Kabir Syed Ali Hamadani A.R").
According to history of Baltistan, "Raja Ghori Tham" had ruled here before 850 A.D. "Ghori Tham" was one of the powerful rulers of his time in "Baltistan" and "Laddakh". His might can be imagined by the traces of his fort found on the top of a mountain situated in "Gulshan-e-Kabir". No food and water was available at the near vicinity of the fort and had to be carried it, down from the village through a special and secrete tunnel made in the mountain. "Ghori Tham" used this fort for defense purposes in the events of foreign invasions. This fort was almost inevitable for most of the invaders as "Ghori Tham" stood at the top of the mountain and attacked his opponents with rocks rolling down the mountains.


Aras (river)

The Aras or Araxes or Araks is a river that starts in Turkey and then flows along the borders between Turkey and Armenia, between Turkey and the Nakhchivan area of Azerbaijan, between Iran and both Azerbaijan and Armenia and finally through Azerbaijan to the river Kura. It drains the south side of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains and then joins the Kura, which drains the north side of Lesser Caucasus Mountains. Its total length is , and its watershed covers an area of . The Aras is one of the largest rivers in the Caucasus.
Names.
In the classical antiquity, the river was known to the Greeks as Araxes (). Its modern Armenian name is "Arax" or "Araks" (). Historically it was also known as "Yeraskh" (), and its Old Georgian name is "Rakhsi" (). In Azerbaijani, the river name is "Araz". In Persian and Kurdish its name is ("Aras") and in Turkish it is "Aras".
Geography.
The Aras rises near Erzurum in Turkey and meets with the Akhurian River southeast of Digor. From Digor it flows along the Armenia–Turkey border, and then runs close to the corridor that connects Turkey to Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan exclave. It then continues along the Iranian-Armenian and the Iranian-Azerbaijan border.
Tributaries.
The following rivers are tributaries of the Aras, from source to mouth:
Etymology and history.
In Armenian tradition, the river is named after Arast, a great-grandson of the legendary Armenian patriarch Haik. The name was later Hellenized to "Araxes" and was applied to the Kura-Araxes culture, a prehistoric people who flourished in the valleys of the Kura and Aras. The river is also mentioned in the last chapter of the Aeneid VIII by Virgil, as "angry at the bridge," since the Romans built a bridge over it, so that it is thereby conquered. The river Aras has been associated with the biblical rivers Gihon and Pishon. Robert H. Hewsen described Aras as the only "true river" of Armenia and as "Mother Araxes," a symbol of pride to the Armenian people.
According to a legend cited by Strabo in ancient times Araxes river in Armenia had no outflow to the Caspian sea but spread out in plains and created a lake without outflow.
In Islamic times, the Araxes became known in Arabic parlance as al-Rass (not to be confused with modern-day Ar Rass) and in Perso-Turkish contexts as Aras.
In modern history, the Aras gained significance as a geographic political boundary. Under the terms of the Treaty of Gulistan and the Treaty of Turkmenchay, the river was chosen as the border limit between the Russian Empire and Qajar Iran, as the latter was forced to cede its Caucasian territories to Russia. Because of this 19 century border changes one modern not widely accepted scheme draws Aras River as the line of continental demarcation between Europe and Asia.
Iran and the Soviet Union has in 20 century built the Aras Dam on the Aras in the Poldasht area creating the Aras Reservoir. The Meghri Dam is under construction near the Armenian town of Meghri.
Aras Valley.
In 2006, a bird research and education center was established by KuzeyDoğa, a Turkish non-governmental organization for nature conservation, in the Aras Valley at the village Yukarı Çıyrıklı, in the Tuzluca district of Iğdır Province, Turkey. It is one of Turkey's two bird ringing stations that remain active yearly. Between 2006 and 2015, more than 65,000 birds of 198 species were ringed and 258 bird species were observed at this station. Fifty-five percent of the 471 bird species found in Turkey are recorded at this wetland, making it Turkey's most important wetland for birds. The number of ringed and observed 258 bird species comprises 85 percent of the 303 bird species in Iğdır Province. Seven new bird species were observed during the bird ringing activities in 2012 alone, including the raptor Shikra or Little Banded Goshawk ("Accipiter badius"), which was new to Turkey's avifauna.
University of Utah biology professor Çağan Şekercioğlu, president of the KuzeyDoğa Society, appealed to the Ministry of Forest and Water Management to drop the Tuzluca Dam project, which would destroy the wetland harboring bird wildlife in the Aras Valley. In 2013, the ministry granted the site the highest level of conservation status (Nature Conservation Area).


Voeren

Voeren (; ) is a Flemish Dutch-speaking municipality with facilities for the French-speaking minority, located in the Belgian province of Limburg. Bordering the Netherlands to the north and the Wallonia region's Liège Province () to the south, it is geographically detached from the rest of Flanders, making Voeren an exclave of Flanders. Voeren's name is derived from that of a small right-bank tributary of the Meuse, the Voer, which flows through the municipality.
The current municipality of Voeren was established by the municipal reform of 1977. On 1 January 2008, Voeren had a total population of 4,207. Its total area is , giving a population density of . About 25% of the population is made up of foreign nationals, most of whom have Dutch nationality.
Villages.
The municipality consists of the six villages of 's-Gravenvoeren (), Sint-Pieters-Voeren (), Sint-Martens-Voeren (), Moelingen (), Teuven and Remersdaal (, ). 's-Gravenvoeren is the most important and most populous village of the municipality. Locally, the three villages are named Sint-Marten (), Sint-Pieter (), and Voeren () for 's-Gravenvoeren.
History.
Since the 11th century, two-thirds of the territory of the present municipality of Voeren was in the county of Dalhem, which was a possession of the Dukes of Brabant, and the remaining one-third in the Duchy of Limburg, which also belonged to Brabant after 1288. Both of these Duchies were part of the Holy Roman Empire but they developed a relatively independent regime ruled by powerful dynasties. They successively became part of the Burgundian Netherlands, the Habsburg Netherlands, and after the Dutch Revolt, part of the Spanish, later Austrian controlled, Southern Netherlands.
During the French occupation (1794–1815), the old boundaries of the "ancien regime" were rejected and the French "département" of Ourthe was created. After the defeat of France and the end of Napoleanic wars, this became the modern Belgium's Liège Province until 1963 when de Voer Region was transferred out of Liège, and into the province of Limburg, thus becoming part of Flanders.
Linguistic and political issues.
Most native people in Voeren speak a variant of Limburgish, a regional language related to Dutch (in the Netherlands referred to as a separate language; in Flanders treated as a Dutch dialect) and German. The same Germanic dialect is also spoken in the of Blieberg, Welkenraedt and Baelen and has been recognised by the French Community of Belgium as a regional language, the so-called Low Dietsch dialects since 1990.
Voeren is economically dependent on the surrounding provinces of Liège and Dutch Limburg and standard Dutch and French are also generally spoken.
Until the beginning of the 20th century language use in the area was mixed. People spoke the local dialect in daily life. The government institutions used French, while church and school used German or Dutch. However, some influential inhabitants such as the local priest, Hendrik Veltmans, argued that Voeren was culturally Flemish and actively tried to bring Voeren into Flanders.
In 1932, with the introduction of new language laws, the linguistic alignment of Voeren was determined (as for all other towns along the language border in Belgium) on the basis of the results of the census of 1930. According to this census 81.2% of the population of the six villages that now make up Voeren spoke Dutch and 18.8% declared that they spoke French. Administrative changes were made as a result. The results of the next census, held in 1947, were only made public in 1954 and gave a totally different outcome, with only 42.9% stating that they spoke Dutch and 57.1% French. According to the 1932 legislation this would have meant that the linguistic status of the villages would have changed from Dutch speaking with a French minority to French speaking with a Dutch-speaking minority.
At that time however, due to the rising political controversy between the Dutch- and French-speaking communities in Belgium, a parliamentary committee (the so-called centrum Harmel, named after Pierre Harmel) was established to fix, amongst other things, the language boundary once and for all. This committee proposed, notwithstanding the 1947 results (strongly disputed by the Flemish and recognised by the Belgian parliament as useless for determining the language border since the consultation was found to be rigged by nationalist francophones which is why the 1947 results were published in 1954), that the six villages were Dutch speaking with special regulations for the French-speaking minority to be decided after discussion with the town councils.
In 1962 the work of the committee resulted in a law proposed by the Frenchspeaking Minister of the Interior, Arthur Gilson, whereby Voeren would be officially Dutch speaking with language facilities for the French-speaking community, but would remain part of the French-speaking Liège Province. The proposal included a similar system for Mouscron and Comines-Warneton who would be officially Frenchspeaking with language facilities for the Dutch-speaking community, but would remain part of the Dutch-speaking province of West-Flanders.
After fierce debate in parliament the proposal of minister Gilson was approved but subject to the amendment that Voeren would become part of the Dutch-speaking province of Limburg and Mouscron and Comines-Warneton become part of the Frenchspeaking Hainaut province.
This amendment was introduced by the Walloon socialist politician and former mayor of Liège Paul Gruselin who wanted to transfer the Flemish towns with a Francophone majority Comines-Warneton and Mouscron to the Walloon province of Hainaut and offered to transfer the Voer region to the Dutchspeaking province of Limburg as compensation.
In order to understand this proposal of the Walloon socialists of Liège and Mouscron one must take into account the fact that almost everyone at the time, considered that a Dutch-speaking dialect, Low Dietsch was spoken in the Voer Region and that, consequently, their inhabitants would willingly accept this change. The 75,000 inhabitants of the towns Mouscron and Comines-Warneton brought one extra deputy's seat while the 4,000 inhabitants of the villages of the Voer Region were far from being worth as much.
This switch from Liège to Limburg was received badly by many local people because of the region's dependence on Liège. Francophones in particular campaigned for the region to be returned to the province of Liège. Similarly in Comines-Warneton and a Mouscron, the city councils and a large majority of the population wanted to remain part of the Dutch-speaking province of West Flanders or at the very least become a new francophone province together with the city of Tournai, the Tournaisis because they identified as Frenchified Flemings, having shared a history with the other regions of the former County of Flanders and felt culturally closer to French Flanders than to the Hainaut Province.
On January 1, 1977, the six small municipalities were merged into the present-day Voeren municipality. The Francophone and Flemish movements could organize themselves politically more effectively as there was now one instead of six municipal councils. This resulted in political and linguistic strife between the Francophone "Retour à Liège" (Return to Liège) party and the Flemish "Voerbelangen" (Voeren's Best Interests) party. The "Retour à Liège" faction won a majority in the new council. There were also action committees on both sides and gangs who daubed place-name signs and took part in violent demonstrations. The language struggle in Voeren became a national issue, and people from outside the region became involved.
The linguistic struggle came to a head when José Happart was put forward as mayor in 1983. For one thing, he was alleged to have supported the Francophone gangs in Voeren. However the main problem was the constitutional question of whether someone who could not speak Dutch could become mayor of a Flemish municipality. Happart was dismissed as mayor for refusing to take a Dutch-language test, but appealed against his dismissal, and the question dragged on for years, ultimately causing the Belgian government Martens VI to fall on October 19, 1987.
In 1988 concessions to the Francophone inhabitants were made. The powers of the provincial government of Limburg were curtailed and more autonomy was given to the municipality. The government of Walloon Region was allowed to build facilities for Francophones in Voeren.
In the 1994 municipal elections the Dutch-speaking party ("Voerbelangen") won a seat more than in earlier elections but was still a minority on the council. In 1995 Mayor Happart was forced to leave office. The national court of arbitration (now Belgian Constitutional Court ) declared some of the 1988 concessions unconstitutional (e.g. the Walloon building rights).
EU nationals were given suffrage at the municipal level in 1999. This factor was decisive in the 2000 municipal elections, because of the significant number of Dutch citizens living in Voeren (about 20% of the total population): "Voerbelangen" won a majority of 53% of the votes and 8 out of 15 local council seats. However, the new majority faced budgetary difficulties, since large debts had been incurred by the previous administration. The council had to sell several items of municipal property, such as forests and goods to stabilise its finances. As from 2003–2004 the council is viable again, and new projects are being started to fulfill the promises made during the elections. In the 2006 municipal elections "Voerbelangen" won again, gaining 61% of the votes and 9 out of 15 council seats. For the first time, "Voerbelangen" also won the majority of the seats in the council of the OCMW (Public Centre for Social Welfare), the social affairs department of the municipality, for which nationals of other EU countries may not vote.
Though the violence of the 1970s and 1980s has subsided, some activists still daub graffiti on place-name signs. In December 2006, the Flemish Government decided to abolish all official French translations in Flemish municipalities and villages, including municipalities with language facilities. Thus the French names of the Voeren municipality and villages will no longer be used on place-name signs, traffic signs and by municipality and other governments in official documents.
Results of the linguistic censuses of 1930 and 1947 per village.
Precise figures on the ethnic composition of Belgium are impossible to obtain, for the language question is so controversial that the Belgian census has not included data on linguistic composition of communes since 1947.


Flags of Frisia

There are several Frisian flags.
See also.
Frisian Flag may also refer to a product of Friesland Foods.


Houwald family

Houwald family (also Houvalt, Ubald, Haubal, Haubalt, Huwald) is a noble family originating from Saxony.


Lapland

Lapland may refer to:


Novi Bezdan

Novi Bezdan () is a settlement in the region of Baranja, Croatia. Administratively, it is located in the Petlovac municipality within the Osijek-Baranja County. Population is 300 people.


Gauja

The Gauja River (, ) is a river in the Vidzeme region of Latvia. It is the only large river of Latvia that begins and ends its flow in Latvia. Its length is 460 km, of which 1/5 or 93.5 km are in the Gauja National Park. In this part, the Gauja River flows through a spacious ancient Gauja valley, which is 1 to 2.5 km wide, and the maximum depth near Sigulda is 85 m. Thus, in essence, Gauja is the longest river of Latvia when we count only the parts of the river in the country's territory. Daugava has only 367 km in Latvia, while the whole river is over 1000 km.
The sandstone rocks on the banks of the Gauja and its adjoining rivers started forming 370 to 300 million years ago during the Devonian period.
History.
Before 13th century the Gauja River used to serve as a trade route and border river between the Livonian and Latgalian lands. In some territories, they used to live mixed together. When Livonian languages were still present along the Gauja River and the sea, it used to be called "Koivo" (the Saint River). In Latvian, the name of the Gauja River used to mean 'a great amount', 'a crowd', and was therefore called the 'big river'. The Livonians suffered greatly during the Great Northern War and following plague in the 18th century. That was the period when the remaining Livonians assimilated with the Latvians.
Today.
The Gauja River tends to change its bed rapidly. Therefore, it has gained the reputation of being deceitful. The bed of the river is made of unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits that move along with the current. In some places, the bed is pebbly, thus forming impressive boulder rapids: Kazu, Raiskuma, Rakšu, and Ķūķu. The bottom of the river in Gauja National Park is 60 to 120 meters wide with a rapidly changing depth from 0.3 m to 7 m. The decline is 0.5 m/km. The speed of flow during low water is 0.2 to 0.4 m/s, and during the spring water period 2 to 3 m/s. Due to the fluctuations in water level, current speed, and special flow features, the Gauja River may be characterized as a rather non-homogeneous watercourse.
Usually the Gauja River freezes over in the mid-December, and the ice starts moving in late March. During warm winters, the river does not freeze over. Much underground water flows into the Gauja River. It therefore has a lower water temperature than other large rivers in Latvia.


Landai Sin River

The Landai Sin River ( "Lanḍai Sīn", "Short River"), also called the Bashgal River (), is located in eastern Afghanistan. It rises in the Hindu Kush range near the Mandol Pass in the Nuristan Province of Afghanistan, and is fed from glaciers and snow to its north.
The Landai Sin Valley is inhabited by the Kata, Mumo ("Madugal"), Kashtan, and Kom tribes of the Nuristani people. Eastern Kata-vari is the main spoken language in the Landai Sin Valley. The main town on the river is Kamdesh.


Dachang Hui Autonomous County

Dachang Hui Autonomous County (; Xiao'erjing: ) is a Hui autonomous county of Hebei province. It is under the administration of Langfang prefecture-level city, and was established in 1955. The Hui Muslim county of Dachang was subjected to slaughter by the Japanese in the Second Sino-Japanese War.
Together with Sanhe City, and Xianghe County, it forms the , an exclave of Hebei province surrounded by the municipalities of Beijing and Tianjin, and itself borders Beijing to the west.
A Dachang Hui Imam, Ma Zhenwu, wrote a Qur'an translation into Chinese including Chinese characters and Xiao'erjing.
The county spans an area of , and has a population of about 134,000 people as of 2019.
Administrative divisions.
The county administers one subdistrict and five towns. The county also administers the Hebei Dachang High-tech Industrial Development Zone, which serves as a township-level division. These township-level divisions then administer 16 residential communities, and 105 administrative villages.
Dachang's sole subdistrict is .
Dachang's five towns are , , , Shaofu, and Chenfu.
Geography.
The county is bounded by the Chaobai River, across from which is Tongzhou District in Beijing.
Dachang's county center lies from Tiananmen Square, and from the center of Tianjin.
34.2% of the county is forested.
Demographics.
As of 2019, Dachang is home to about 27,400 Hui people, comprising approximately 20.45% of the county's population.
Economy.
As of 2019, Dachang's gross domestic product totaled ¥16.48 billion. The county's urban residents have an annual per capita disposable income of ¥45,044, and the county's rural residents have an annual per capita disposable income of ¥18,418.
Transportation.
A number of expressways pass through the county, including the Jingping Expressway, the Jingqin Expressway, the Beijing–Harbin Expressway, and the G95 Capital Area Loop Expressway.
Five passenger bus lines link Dachang to Beijing.
The Beijing–Tangshan intercity railway is planned to run through the county, but is still under construction as of 2021.


Kashmir Valley

The Kashmir Valley, also known as the "Vale of Kashmir", is an intermontane valley in Kashmir; it is in the portion of the Kashmir region administered by India. The valley is bounded on the southwest by the Pir Panjal Range and on the northeast by the main Himalayas range. It is approximately long and wide, and drained by the Jhelum River.
Geography.
The Kashmir Valley lies between latitude 32° and 34°N, and longitude 74° and 75°E. The valley is wide and in area. The Himalayas divide the Kashmir valley from the Tibetan plateau while the Pir Panjal range, which encloses the valley from the west and the south, separates it from the Punjab Plain. Along the northeastern flank of the Valley runs the main range of the Himalayas. The valley is situated in the bosom of the western Himalayas at an average elevation of above sea-level, but the surrounding Pir Panjal range has an average elevation of . The Jhelum River is the main river of the Valley. It rises at Verinag; its most important tributaries are the Lidder and Sind rivers.
Climate.
The Kashmir Valley has a moderate climate, which is largely defined by its geographic location, with the towering Karakoram Range in the north, Pir Panjal Range in the south and west, and Zanskar Range in the east. It can be generally described as cool in the spring and autumn, mild in the summer and cold in the winter. As a large valley with significant differences in geo-location among various districts, the weather is often cooler in the hilly areas compared to the flat lower parts.
Summer is usually mild and fairly dry, but relative humidity is generally high and the nights are cool. Precipitation occurs throughout the year and no month is particularly dry. The hottest month is July (mean minimum temperature 16 °C, mean maximum temperature 32 °C) and the coldest are December–January (mean minimum temperature −15 °C, mean maximum temperature 0 °C).
Compared with other plain parts of India, the Kashmir Valley enjoys a more moderate climate but weather conditions are unpredictable. The recorded high temperature is 33 °C and the recorded low is −18 °C. On 5 and 6 January 2012, after years of relatively little snow, a wave of heavy snow and low temperatures (winter storm) shocked the valley covering it in a thick layer of snow and ice.
The Valley has seen an increase in relative humidity and annual precipitation in the last few years. This is most likely because of the commercial afforestation projects which also include expanding parks and green cover.


Kirnitzsch

The Kirnitzsch (German), in Bohemia also called the Kirnischt, , is a right tributary of the River Elbe, which passes through the Czech Republic and the German Free State of Saxony.
Geography.
The Kirnitzsch, also called the "Kirnscht" or "Kirnsch" in the local dialect, rises in the Lusatian Highlands in Bohemia west of the village of Studánka (German "Schönborn") and flows westwards through the town of Krásná Lípa ("Schönlinde"). Behind the village of ("Khaa", part of Krásná Lípa) it wends its way along narrow ravines through the sandstone rocks of Bohemian Switzerland. The wild, romantic valley is also called the Khaatal ("Kyjovske údoli") (Khaa valley).
On the site of the former village of Hinterdaubitz (""), demolished after 1945, the border stream of "Weißbach" empties into the Kirnitzsch, which, from this point, forms the border between the Czech Republic and Saxony. Further downstream the Kirnitzsch is first impounded at the Obere Schleuse ("Upper Lock") so that boating can take place on the stream.
At the end of the Kirnitzsch Gorge ("Kirnitzschklamm") used to stand the houses of the border village of ("Hinterdittersbach") and the settlement of Křinice ("Kirnscht"). These places, too, no longer exist. From here the Kirnitzsch flows through Saxon Switzerland, where it is impounded again at the "Niedere Schleuse" ("Lower Lock"). Shortly thereafter the Kirnitzsch enters the narrow Kirnitzsch Valley ("Kirnitzschtal"). It flows through the valley for about to the Lichtenhain Waterfall. After another it discharges into the Elbe at Bad Schandau. Over its last few kilometres it is followed by the Kirnitzschtal tramway that runs parallel to the Kirnitzsch.