Subject: Re: extraterritoriality
Date: Oct 26, 2004 @ 19:21
Author: aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>used
> --- 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 outdated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
> nowadays in contexts that do involve territories. That can meanthat
> the term is used wrong, but it can also mean that the meaning ofthe
> term is shifting.well the particular form of leverage that the vatican appears to
> I can remember (it has been discussed here at BP a couple of times)centre
> 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
> was on grounds that enjoyed "extraterritoriality". The term iswidely
> used for this and other areas in and around Rome that are exemptfrom
> Italian legislation - I think it is even used in the Lateran treaty.state
>
> And also (this may be another subject): if some legislation of
> A doesn't apply because of extraterritoriality, and thisyes but it is actually only a blessed relief
> 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 itin
> thethe
> > 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
> discussion.
>
> Peter