yes & it sounds like all of these are again not really cases of
extraterritoriality
whatever that word is supposed to mean
but rather individual & very specific special arrangements
&or actual territorial agreements
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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@p...>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >