I agree. Sometimes small diplomatic missions do not even have "grounds," but
are merely rooms or suites of rooms rented on the upper floors of commercial
office buildings. The diplomatic activities of the sending nation within them
still enjoy immunity from the laws of the host nation under various treaties and
the age-old practices of diplomacy.
Wolfgang is correct, however, in that diplomatic missions do have certain
functional similarities to extraterritorial properties.
There are various shades and gradations of extraterritoriality. Some examples
of extraterritoriality in the American experience are the Guantanamo Bay Naval
Station in Cuba and the former Canal Zone in Panamá. Many of the non-domestic
military facilities of the USA and other nations are operated under "status of
forces agreements" with host nations that give the sending nations exclusive
jurisdiction over their facilities and personnel. These sometimes vary among
host nations.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joachim Duester" <jduester@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:30 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] extraterritoriality
>
>
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>