Lowell G McManus has given some examples (Guantanamo Bay Naval
Station in Cuba and the former Canal Zone in Panama, and many of the
non-domestic military facilities of the USA). These examples are more
or less in line with my definition that extraterritoriality applies to
territories which are undisputedly part of country A but where the law
of country A is wholly or in part not applicable because of
international law or special national legislation. And I mean: not
only specific persons are exempted (such as diplomats), but anybody
and anything that goes on in the territory. I am not sure whether all
SOFAs go that far. By the way, if you apply this definition, you could
also speak of a certain amount of extraterritoriality when it comes to
free zones (e.g. Jebel Ali Free Zone in the UAE) and similar entities
where some national laws (such as company laws, taxation laws, ect.)
do not apply.
HOWEVER ! BUT! Coming just back from the library, I find that current
international law seems to avoid the term extraterritoriality and,
moreover, does not use it to characterize the status of territories.
The biggest law dictionary I could find (Encyclopedia of Public
International Law / ed. by Berhardt et al., 1992-2003, 5 volumes),
doesn't have an article on "extraterritoriality" at all!
Bledsoe & Boczek's "Int'l Law Dictionary" (1987) has the following
short note:
"Extraterritoriality: a legal fiction whereby heads of state,
diplomatic agents, ... the premises of diplomatic missions and
residences of diplomatic agents ... are immune from the jurisdiction
of the host state as if they were not located in its territory"
and then goes on explaining that this stems from an outdated
interpretation that hat its origins in the Middle Ages whereas the
modern view is that diplomatic privileges etc. etc. serve a functional
role and have their foundations in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations of 1961 etc. etc.
Nowhere is the term applied to a --territory--. Not even in the sense
I wanted to use it. And when its applied to describe privileges of
persons or diplomatic mission, I am told the term reflects an outdated
concept.
Perhaps we should just forget it. Drop it. Eliminate it. Put it in the
wastebin. Sorry for bringing it up at all - I fear I just wasted your
time ;-)
Joachim
"Wolfgang Schaub" <Wolfgang.Schaub@c...> wrote:
> Aha. Always ready to learn something new.
>
> Joachim, can you then please give examples of extraterritorial pieces of
> land, say, somewhere in Europe? And examples for privileges that
they enjoy?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wolfgang
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Joachim Duester [mailto:jduester@p...]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2004 16:30
> An: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [BoundaryPoint] extraterritoriality
>
>
>
>
> I beg to differ from Wolfgang's defininition of eytraterritoriality.
>
> A distinction has to be made between sovereignty over territory (which
> is a matter of international public law or "law of nations") and
> ownership (which is a matter of private law). A piece of land owned by
> one country as a private owner in another country does not
> automatically enjoy extraterritorial privileges. For a piece of
> territory to enjoy extraterritoral privileges, it is not necessary to
> be under the private ownership of another subject of international
law.
>
> The embassy of one state in another state is NOT extraterritorial
> territory, and it does not matter in this respect at all whether the
> embassy plot/building has been purchased or only rented in the host
> country. The special privileges and immunities enjoyed by embassy
> premises are not the result of extraterritoriality but are privileges
> granted under the Vienna Convention or other treaties to that effect.
> These privileges apply regardless whether the embassy grounds are
> owned by the sending state or are only rented from a local owner or
> the host government.
>
> Joachim