I would have preferred to check a legal dictionary first, but off-hand
I would define I would define extraterritoriality as the state of
being exempt from local law and thus from local jurisdiction. This is
usually as the result of treaties or established international usage.
In some cases, military bases have been made extraterritorial by
treaty arrangements. Sorry, I don't know if some Vatican buildings
outside the Vatican City State enjoy extraterritoriality - one would
have to check what treaty arrangements exist to that effect between
Italy and the Holy See.
In the case of embassy of country A in country B, there is no
extraterritoriality. The laws of country B fully apply within the
embassy premises, but privileges and immunities prevent authorities of
country B from enforcing them without the consent of country A. As far
as the privileges apply not only to protect the functions of the
premises as an embassy, but also pertain to personnel (such as
diplomats), the laws cannot even be enforced against a person enjoying
diplomatic immunity even if this person is outside the embassy. So
this person's immunities have nothing to do with extraterritoriality,
but with his personal status as a diplomat. Otherwise, if a theft is
committed inside the embassy of country A in country B, the law of
country B is applicable and B's courts have jurisdiction when it comes
to trial (i.e., unless diplomatic privileges and immunities or other
legal rules prevent persons from being tried). This shows that the
concept of extraterritoriality is not useful when it comes to
explaining the legal bases of privileges and immunities of foreign
missions and their staff.
If I remember correctly, the concept of extraterritoriality was in use
to explain such immunities until around the 18th century ... which is
rather a long time past now.
Joachim
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
<smaardijk@y...> wrote:
>
> OK, thanks. So what _is_ extraterritoriality exactly, and where can
> it be found (the various Vatican buildings in and around Rome,
> probably - but are there other examples?)
> Peter
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Joachim Duester"
> <jduester@p...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > >