I think this has to be considered in a different light - under the
concept of shared sovereignty. There are shades of sharing. The most
perfect example of extraterritoriality to me was the US Panama Canal
Zone. Under the treaty that gave the U. S. jurisdiction, it had the
right to "act as though it were sovereign" to the total exclusion of
the exercise of sovereignty by Panama. In other words, Panama
retained titular sovereignty and could only re-establish the exercize
of it's sovereignty if the U. S. abandoned its sovereign rights to act
as though it were the sovereign. The U.S. only "acted" as a sovereign
- it wasn't ever the sovereign there.

Every other shade of (combination) of exercise of acts of state by two
states in the same piece of land is shared sovereignty. For instance,
in Büsingen, German territory subject to Swiss customs, that is a
shade in degrees of the sharing of sovereign rights - a shade from
absolute sovereignty on one side and true extraterritoriality on the
other. Extraterritoriality always carries with it the concept of
titular sovereignty the moment an iota of sovereign rights are ceded
to a second sovereign to exercise to some extent. One comes full
circle when one state fully cedes sovereignty to the one that had been
previously only "acting as though".

Is sovereignty divisible? We know the exercise of it is. Sumthin'
for the philosophers.

LN