Regardless of what kind of US jurisdiction applies there, both the USA and Cuba
consider Guantanamo to be Cuban sovereign territory, and the US Treasury
dutifully sends Castro annual checks for $4,085 for the lease per the 1934
renegotiation of the 1903 treaty--even though he refuses to cash them. Get a
load of the tag line under the title on the official web site at
http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/ !
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:56 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: extraterritoriality
>
>
> so i think it is time we recognized that guantanamo isnt really
> extraterritorial territory of the usa
> but normal territorial territory of the usa
>
> & no matter that the cuus treaty looks different from other treaties
> & is based on a bogus premise
> for this territory is still under actual united states sovereignty
> plain & simple
>
> & we can yak on about how american law applies differently in
> guantanamo than say in key west
> but that is just a peculiarity of american law
> & not the result of a distinction in the sovereign statuses of those
> places
>
> & of course sovereignty is a bogus concept to begin with
> but extraterritorial sovereignty is more bogus than usual or necessary
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > 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@y...>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>