Subject: Re: extraterritoriality
Date: Oct 27, 2004 @ 17:21
Author: aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Regardless of what kind of US jurisdiction applies there, both theUSA and Cuba
> consider Guantanamo to be Cuban sovereign territory, and the USTreasury
> dutifully sends Castro annual checks for $4,085 for the lease perthe 1934
> renegotiation of the 1903 treaty--even though he refuses to cashthem. Get a
> load of the tag line under the title on the official web site attreaties
> http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/ !
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> 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
> > & is based on a bogus premisethose
> > 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
> > placesnecessary
> >
> > & of course sovereignty is a bogus concept to begin with
> > but extraterritorial sovereignty is more bogus than usual or
> >but
> > --- 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),
> > rather withboth
> > > 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
> > criminal andthat
> > > civil matters concerning Americans in those countries where
> > treaties allowed it.
> > >
> > > Since this sort of thing is rather imperialistic and implies
> > some sovereignfavor in
> > > nations are superior to others, it has largely fallen from
> > the modernwhere
> > > 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
> > canterritory
> > > > 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
> > > > (whichnations") and
> > > > > is a matter of international public law or "law of
> > > > > ownership (which is a matter of private law). A piece ofland
> > ownedpiece of
> > > > by
> > > > > one country as a private owner in another country does not
> > > > > automatically enjoy extraterritorial privileges. For a
> > > > > territory to enjoy extraterritoral privileges, it is notthe
> > 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
> > hostthat
> > > > > 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
> > > > effect.grounds
> > > > > These privileges apply regardless whether the embassy
> > arestate
> > > > > 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
> > > > territory.of
> > > > > > Otherwise properties owned by a country on the territory
> > > > another areembassies,
> > > > > > extra-territorial entities. Examples: All foreign
> > > > > CastelgandolfoLatour
> > > > > > castle of the Vatican inside Italy, the monument for
> > > > > d'Auvergne owned
> > > > > > by France inside Germany, and many others.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >