Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: extraterritoriality
Date: Oct 28, 2004 @ 07:15
Author: Michael Kaufman (Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>__________________________________
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> Smaardijk"
> <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> >
> "And also (this may be another subject): if some
> legislation of state
> A doesn't apply because of extraterritoriality, and
> this
> isn't "filled in" by the appropriate legislation of
> state B, isn't
> there a vacuum for that particular legislation?"
>
>
> Not necessarily, although possibly. For instance,
> the Kleinwalsertal,
> for example, is Austrian territory under German
> customs jurisdiction
> (among other things), at least for a little while
> longer. It is a
> "Zollausschlussgebiet" (customs excluded zone) for
> Austria and a
> customs included zone (Zollanschluss) for Germany.
> It could have just
> as easily been made an excluded zone by Austria and
> not been placed in
> German customs territory.
>
> Exactly that situation exists at Livigno, Italy and
> Sumnaun,
> Switzerland, just south of the Kleinwalsertal on the
> other side of the
> Alps - they are outside of the customs territory of
> the mother
> countries but not inside the customs zones of their
> neighbor
> countries. They are truly "duty free" zones. An
> economic advantage
> is the nature of those "vacuums". They are exactly
> what was desired
> by the mother countries for these areas, so isn't
> really a "hole that
> was left". There is no extraterritoriality issue
> because no sovereign
> rights have been devolved to another sovereign
> solely because the
> mother country decided to not exercize its full
> pallette of rights in
> those places.
>
> LN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>