SMOM has nothing to do with the modern state of Malta.
It has not been a sovereign state for ages, but it is recognized as a sovereign
non-state entity without sovereign territory, nevertheless, by Italy and a
number of other (mostly Roman Catholic) countries. It functions as an
international Catholic relief agency. Its theoretical sovereignty
assures its neutrality and is useful in the freedom of movement of its
personnel and assets during times of war, etc. The headquarters house that
it occupies in Rome is not sovereign territory, but it is still a bit more than
an imaginary state or a government in exile. It is the
functional equivalent of the diplomatic mission of a recognized but stateless
sovereign entity. Although the house is part of Italy, by Italian law the
official activities that SMOM conducts there are exempt from Italian law.
This has led some to describe the jurisdiction as extraterritorial, but that
word hardly fits, since SMOM has no territory anywhere.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:55
PM
Subject: AW: [BoundaryPoint] Re:
extraterritoriality
SMOM, to my knowledge and my interpretation, is fiction. It is the
representation of a government that no longer exists since Napoleon has
expelled it from Malta. The fact that it occupies a house in Rome and is
"recognized" by a couple of other international institutions does not help
much. It simply has no territory, the fundamental requirement for a state. By
no means it is extraterritoreal to today's Malta.
And
what about the Principality of Seborga?
What about SMOM in Rome?
regards, Chris
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 4:42
PM
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.
> >
__________ NOD32
1.906 (20041025) Information __________
Diese E-Mail wurde vom
NOD32 Antivirus System geprüft
http://www.nod32.com