well then i must say it was i who chose the word condo
the informal word for condominium
to informally describe this situation of joint rule or ownership of
territory by 2 or more nations
& in this case the zone belongs formally to all 191 of them
so perhaps multido for multidominium
or pando for pandominium
would have been the better term for me to use
you on the other hand speak repeatedly only in terms of vague
analogies
i was only trying for something a little more specific
& did not at all mean to confound your nebulosity
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I must say that the UN site does not use the word
"condominium," but calls its
> 18 acres "an international zone belonging to all Member
States."
>
> This begs the question: What does the United States call
those 18 acres?
>
> Answer: "The United Nations Headquarters District"
>
> Here's the law, 22 USC 4309a(e):
>
> (e) ''United Nations Headquarters District'' defined
> For purposes of this section, the term ''United Nations
> Headquarters District'' means the area within the United
States
> which is agreed to by the United Nations and the United
States to
> constitute such a district, together with such other areas as
the
> Secretary of State may approve from time to time in order to
permit
> effective functioning of the United Nations or missions to the
> United Nations.
>
> The full text of the 1946 agreement between the UN and the
USA is found within
> the very long web page at http://tinyurl.com/5rb5x . When you
get to the page,
> use your browser's "Find on this page" function to search for
the word
> "Desiring" to go directly to the beginning of the agreement.
Once you have read
> its 28 sections and two annexes (paying particular attention to
Section 7), you
> will see that the UNHD is much more analogous to a
diplomatic facility than to a
> sovereign entity. The agreement simply assures the UN that it
and its members
> will be free to perform their proper functions within the UNHD
without American
> interference.
>
> As to property ownership: The US government acquired the
land by expropriation
> for the UN, and the UN reimbursed it. The UN holds title to the
property, but
> its ownership reverts to the US government or to the city or
state if the UN
> vacates.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 4:46 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that
isn't in a State?
>
>
> > the united nations itself calls the entire 18 acres an
international
> > zone
> > & describes it as a condo belonging to all 191 of its
members
> > http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/untour/subunh.htm
> >
> > so it could yet prove to be a true territorial entity rather than
just a
> > merely diplomatic enclave
> > with real stamps & real security forces
> > just like the vatican & taiwan
> > in case thats all that matters
> >
> > for we know it doesnt have to be a member of the united
nations
> > in order to be considered a real country with a real territory
> >
> > so perhaps more data are needed to fully answer this
question