grant
you were saying here to arif that sovereignty doesnt really achieve its
full meaning when applied to the vatican
& i understand what you meant too
but i also had to wonder whether i made myself clear earlier about the
vatican being legally an exclave only of god
it was a fair joke
but more importantly
it comes from the preamble to the lateran treaty
which begins
in the name of the most holy trinity
& then stipulates
permanently assuring to the holy see a position de facto & de jure
which shall guarantee absolute independence for the fulfillment of its
exalted mission in the world
these terms make the sovereignty of the vatican legally the same as the
divine sovereignty itself
& thus make it the only known legal exclave of god in the world
with everything else in the world being presumably just virtual
exclaves of god
whereas all the other normally acknowledged sovereignties in the world
say like that of spain including its exclave llivia
come down through tradition from the divine right of their kings
which is however nearly totally forgotten in modern times
having become diffused into a sovereignty of nationhood
rather than just of their monarchs alone any longer
but of course in reality everyone is just as sovereign & divine as everyone
else
or even as any entire sovereign country for that matter
or even the universal sovereignty itself for all i could say
so you may be able to resolve your conflict by tracking down & appreciating
all the nuances & shadings of virtuality & sovereignty that can probably be
found in all the details & traces of the special prestige & leverage the
vatican enjoys
but it may also help to treat your conflict as just a reflection of the
larger conflict within the treaty
for both are easily resolvable by postulating the divinity of self
just as the vatican has done for itself
whereupon all the many shades of distinction might vanish in such light
m
>
>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
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=55
>1014/?http://www.debticated.com target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>of Service.