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

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Wolfgang Schaub"
<Wolfgang.Schaub@c...> wrote:

> Hello, I am new to the group. En/exclaves are territories owned by

another

> country in the sense that they form part of the parent state territory.
> Otherwise properties owned by a country on the territory of another are
> extra-territorial entities. Examples: All foreign embassies,

Castelgandolfo

> castle of the Vatican inside Italy, the monument for Latour

d'Auvergne owned

> by France inside Germany, and many others.
>