--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Joachim Duester"
<jduester@p...> wrote:
(...)

> Nowhere is the term applied to a --territory--. Not even in the

sense

> I wanted to use it. And when its applied to describe privileges of
> persons or diplomatic mission, I am told the term reflects an

outdated

> concept.

Yes, that may be true, but the term extraterritoriality is still used
nowadays in contexts that do involve territories. That can mean that
the term is used wrong, but it can also mean that the meaning of the
term is shifting.

I can remember (it has been discussed here at BP a couple of times)
that the transmitter centre of Vatican radio was causing much
problems because of alleged harmful levels of radiation it was
producing (harmful for the Italians living nearby, that is). The
Italian government couldn't do anything about it, because the centre
was on grounds that enjoyed "extraterritoriality". The term is widely
used for this and other areas in and around Rome that are exempt from
Italian legislation - I think it is even used in the Lateran treaty.

And also (this may be another subject): if some legislation of state
A doesn't apply because of extraterritoriality, and this
isn't "filled in" by the appropriate legislation of state B, isn't
there a vacuum for that particular legislation?

> Perhaps we should just forget it. Drop it. Eliminate it. Put it in

the

> wastebin. Sorry for bringing it up at all - I fear I just wasted

your

> time ;-)

Don't be sorry. You're not waisting my time at all. I'm enjoying the
discussion.

Peter