Apart from leased military bases and other facilities, extraterritoriality has
little to do with territory (else it would be territoriality), but rather with
persons and activities. It is best to think of it as extraterritorial
JURISDICTION--that is, a nation's jurisdiction over its own citizens beyond its
own territory.
The classic 19th-century examples would include the "spheres of influence" and
other trade treaties that various Western nations had in the Orient. For
example, by treaty with Japan, the USA had extraterritorial jurisdiction over
all of its citizens in that country until 1894. Britain and the USA had similar
jurisdiction by treaty with China until 1943. In the American case, US consuls
were empowered to hold "consular courts" and apply US law to both criminal and
civil matters concerning Americans in those countries where treaties allowed it.
Since this sort of thing is rather imperialistic and implies that some sovereign
nations are superior to others, it has largely fallen from favor in the modern
world.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:42 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: extraterritoriality
>
>
> 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.
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>