--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Stavro Blofeld
<blofeld_es@y...> wrote:
> Here is my declaration of faith as to the boundaries
> of Vatican City State.
>
> Links to images below.
>
> On the photo I have tried to fill in with a yellow pen
> what I believe to be the current border. I believe
> that the audience hall is still divided by itva, and I
> believe that the curious sickle-shaped italian piece
> of
> land north of Bernini's masterpiece (alas) no longer
> exists.
i understand why you believe the audience hall is divided by itva
nor would i disagree
even if the vatican herself appears to disagree in
http://tinyurl.com/3gjob
but could you say why you dont believe in the sickle shape
nor evidently in any italian penetration at all into the alleyway
between the passetto & colonnade
contrary again to the above vatican map
while curiously in this case you & the vatican have had to trade
positions in order to continue to disagree
& have incidentally traded positions back again in order to
disagree about a third detail
namely
the short proruption of the passetto into via porta angelica
or perhaps it is only above & not really into this street
& evidently only as far as the iron gate that was recently found
but again as claimed only on the above official map
> With a green pen I have tried to indicate three
> extraterritorial areas candidates in the immediate
> proximity of the Vatican hill.
>
> First, there is the "Uffizio" area, which I believe
> functions as a de facto extension of Vatican City
> State.
yesss
i am glad you too are thinking in terms of a de facto border here
as i myself am just coming around to thinking of itva as
de jurcto
or in other words part de jure & part de facto
& not just because extraterritorial areas adjacent to territorial
areas do effectively extend the de jure territory
but also because it looks like there must be some informal
understanding about this or it wouldnt be on the official map
& the map must reflect something of the actual vatican view at
least if not also of actual italian agreement or acquiescence
& just as the italian police effectively reduce the jurisdictional
vatican when they are invited into & present within the piazza
so their exclusion from the extraterritorial areas just as effectively
extends the jurisdictional vatican
& i think it is the actual jurisdiction more than anything else that
determines effective sovereignty
but presumably this would only apply to extraterritorial territory
that is literally contiguous with de jure sovereign territory
for it seems from her official map that the vatican also is of the
opinion that even just across the piazza uffizio or down the via
conciliazione her sovereign spell over the extraterritorial areas is
less effective
the de facto extension produced by the passetto gate however is
a different situation & a much more glaring even if minuscule
example of territorial appropriation
still the existence of at least these 2 distinct types of anomalous
effectivity
& perhaps others
show how far these 2 entities may be willing go with each other
on a nod & a wink
i say perhaps others because i am still looking forward to
learning the true story of sickle alley
& am recalling how sketchy the de jure delimitation actually is
& cant dismiss the propylaea
or the probably quite irregular marble to cobblestone edges
or the very likely vertical differentiations
all of which seem to me to require still other distinct kinds of de
factivity
tho it isnt clear to me yet how any of these figure in your faith
& i would like to know
because you have obviously studied this a good deal
> I am not entirely convinced that modern Germany really
> has anything to do with the Teutonic cemetary.
>
> Then there is the large green area to the south,
> "Giancolo", which is an area where buildings
> enjoy extraterritorial status. However, major
> construction has taken place since 1929 within this
> area. What are all the new buildings? Are they
> ordinary italian commerce or residence buildings, or
> do they belong to SCV? Do new buildings inherit
> extraterritoriality?
>
> Then there is the Palazzo dei Convertendi on what is
> now Via Conciliazione (previously Borgo Nuovo and
> Borgo Vecchio). This area is a particular mystery.
> According to the treaty the Vatican possessed a
> building that seems to have been torn down at the
> reshaping of Via Conciliazione. I have tentatively
> indicated an area in green that may or may not be part
> of, or a new, extraterritorial Palazzo dei
> Convertendi. Can anyone comment on this?
>
> Orthophoto with scribbled boundaries:
> http://images.enclaves.org/vatican/SCV_orthophoto.jpg
>
> City map of roughly the same area:
> http://images.enclaves.org/vatican/SCV_map.png
> (source www.romaonline.net)
>
> Wellknown appendix to the Lateran Treaty:
> http://images.enclaves.org/vatican/Allegato_I.jpg
>
> Appendix to the Lateran Treaty, showing the Uffizio
> and the Convertendi extraterritorial areas:
> http://images.enclaves.org/vatican/Allegato_II_Tav_10.jpg
>
> Appendix to the Lateran Treaty, showing the Giancolo
> extraterritorial area:
> http://images.enclaves.org/vatican/Allegato_II_Tav_12.jpg
>
> all the best
> m
hahahahaha
very tastefully done maestro
greek proverb
the true friend is another self