The list of extraterritorial areas was apparently changed at least
once, in 1951 (the radio transmitters were added to the list), acc.
to
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0004/20/world/world04.html , so the
buildings enumerated in the Lateran Treaty are not the whole story.
This probably accounts for the difficulty in finding out just how
many and which areas enjoy extraterritoriality.
The Vatican Radio transmitters were located within Vatican City
itself at the time of the Lateran Treaty. These transmitters are
still used for local broadcasts ('nationwide'? :-)), but the big
antennae are at Santa Maria di Galeria.
Peter S.
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., granthutchison@c... wrote:
> Arif:
> >Since I started the virtual enclave debate, I feel I
> >should say something. I never actually included the
> >Vatican enclaves as true virtual enclaves, as I am not
> >sure what the Italian position on the areas is.
> The Lateran Treaty certainly makes a clear distinction between the
> Vatican and these other properties: it uses words
> like "sovereignty", "dominion" and "jurisdiction" for the Vatican,
> but "ownership", "management" and "administration" for the other
> sites. It also says that such sites have the "immunity granted by
> international law to the headquarters of the diplomatic agents of
> foreign states".
> I'm conflicted about this: the above pretty clearly makes the
> external sites rather poor virtual enclaves analoguous to foreign
> embassies; but nowhere (in the Treaty or outside it) have I found
any
> clear statement of how the external sites are treated in any way
> differently from the Vatican itself.
> I suppose the problem may simply be that "sovereignty" doesn't
really
> achieve its full meaning when applied to the Vatican, which is
> basically a few large buildings full of staff, so that there is no
> real room for contrast between the "sovereign" Vatican and
> the "extraterritorial" Papal Villa. Or is there some subtlety in
> international law which means that if Italy grants sovereignty to
the
> Vatican it can never legally backtrack, whereas it can legally
> rescind the assignment of lesser concepts like ownership and
> administration?
>
> Another problem I'm mildly surprised by is my difficulty in finding
a
> current, authoritative list of the Vatican's extraterritorial
> holdings. Some sources say "10 buildings in Rome", some say "13".
But
> I've certainly accumulated more candidates than that, and the
Lateran
> Treaty includes sites that I haven't seen listed elsewhere (as well
> as making non-specific references to various other buildings). The
> waters are muddied farther by the fact that places like the
Gregorian
> University and the Oriental Institute, granted tax-exemption but
not
> extraterritoriality in the Lateran Treaty, are sometimes referred
to
> as if they were extraterritorial.
>
> Grant