thank you very much indeed joachim
& what a relief to learn at length that this entire topic
which we have tried so hard to understand for so long
is basically meaningless at the present time
quite apart from being irrelevant
& not only to multipointing but to everything
or is that not yet a fully correct appreciation
still in waterloo this morning
where
yikes
i just took on 4 fresh gallons of it to drink
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Joachim Duester"
<jduester@p...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> > > >