--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Joachim Duester"
<jduester@p...> wrote:
>
> Lowell G McManus has given some examples (Guantanamo Bay Naval
> Station in Cuba and the former Canal Zone in Panama, and many of the
> non-domestic military facilities of the USA). These examples are
more
> or less in line with my definition that extraterritoriality applies
to
> territories which are undisputedly part of country A but where the
law
> of country A is wholly or in part not applicable because of
> international law or special national legislation. And I mean: not
> only specific persons are exempted (such as diplomats), but anybody
> and anything that goes on in the territory. I am not sure whether
all
> SOFAs go that far. By the way, if you apply this definition, you
could
> also speak of a certain amount of extraterritoriality when it comes
to
> free zones (e.g. Jebel Ali Free Zone in the UAE) and similar
entities
> where some national laws (such as company laws, taxation laws, ect.)
> do not apply.
>
> HOWEVER ! BUT! Coming just back from the library, I find that
current
> international law seems to avoid the term extraterritoriality and,
> moreover, does not use it to characterize the status of territories.
aha
exactly
> The biggest law dictionary I could find (Encyclopedia of Public
> International Law / ed. by Berhardt et al., 1992-2003, 5 volumes),
> doesn't have an article on "extraterritoriality" at all!
aha
exactly
> Bledsoe & Boczek's "Int'l Law Dictionary" (1987) has the following
> short note:
>
> "Extraterritoriality: a legal fiction
aha
exactly yet again
whereby heads of state,
> diplomatic agents, ... the premises of diplomatic missions and
> residences of diplomatic agents ... are immune from the jurisdiction
> of the host state as if they were not located in its territory"
>
> and then goes on explaining that this stems from an outdated
> interpretation that hat its origins in the Middle Ages whereas the
> modern view is that diplomatic privileges etc. etc. serve a
functional
> role and have their foundations in the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic
> Relations of 1961 etc. etc.
>
> 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outdated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.
>
> 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 ;-)
yes we can well afford to forget it now
but you havent at all wasted our time
on the contrary you have saved us a ton of future time
presumably for more pointed pursuit
oh it may well take a few more messages for all the fuss to subside
but you have done us a great service indeed
> Joachim
>
> "Wolfgang Schaub" <Wolfgang.Schaub@c...> wrote:
> > Aha. Always ready to learn something new.
> >
> > Joachim, can you then please give examples of extraterritorial
pieces of
> > land, say, somewhere in Europe? And examples for privileges that
> they enjoy?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Wolfgang
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Joachim Duester [mailto:jduester@p...]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2004 16:30
> > An: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: [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