There is such a thing as extraterritoriality -
Until 1990, there was a fence around a piece of property (I estimate
about four to five acres/hectares), in Frankfurt, Germany (suburb of
Niederrad to the SW of downtown). On the fence to the left side of
the single gate that led inside, there was a sign that was headlined,
in German - "Extraterritoriales Gebiet". It was a big sign - six feet
high at least, with lots and lots of other, smaller words explaining
that the U.S. was the sovereign inside the fence, that U.S. Military
Community Commander in Frankfurt was the governor, that the U.S. had
placed the grounds at the disposal of the Soviet Union and that no
German law applied inside, no German citizen for other third country
national was permitted to enter, and talking to the Russian gate guard
was prohibited. There was a American phone number to call at the
bottom of the sign, in case anyone had questions. The number led
callers to a villa in NE Frankfurt (not on a base) where the commander
had a team that governed the operation inside the fence. Two U.S.
Army regulations regulated the operations - the U.S. supplied the
Russians stationed there with radios, telephones (not German), gas,
heating fuels, and special car license plates (not German and not U.S.
forces plates under the Status of Force treaties - US Forces plates
are actually German plates inscribed with "USA" that the Germans let
the Army give out under provisions of the SoFA treaty), etc. German
authorities were prohibited from approaching the vehicles with those
plates affixed when they were out on the German roads. The occupants
could drive over any German roads except those which were marked on an
American map as off limits to the Russians (generally U. S. military
training areas and roads near allied bases. The Russian occupants of
the area (military officials and their family members) were even given
ID cards so they could shop free of German tax and customs control
(and without needing Germany money) in the U. S. PXs in Frankfurt and
Heidelberg.
The status of the place stemmed from the Hubner-Mallanin Agreement in
the 1940s - it predated the founding the Federal Republic of Germany,
it was not included as part of the land on which Germany was founded
and that was under occupation until 1955. It was basically a
territorial hole in the middle of the Federal Republic. I think (not
sure)it may have technically been part of Prussia. After the U. S.
had taken possession of the Frankfurt site, which was during the
occupation but some years after the war ended (but before the founding
of the Federal Republic), the allies abolished Prussia. It could
even be that the sovereign that the Frankfurt site belonged to before
the Federal Republic came into existence actually went away by U.S.
and allied edict.
In 1990, upon the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Russians abandoned the
site and the U.S. closed the gate. It stayed that way until the U.S.
was able to negotiate an arrangement with the Germans for the transfer
of sovereignty. Today, it is full of German apartments and the
American buildings are gone. Some of the old fence is still there,
but the apartments are new and surrounded by the much older ones that
were previously outside the fence. When one visits the place now, it
is obvious that something odd was there before, because the
architecture is very different from the adjacent old town.
The U.S. never annexed the grounds to make it part of the U.S., but it
was, nevertheless - extraterritorial - because it was never a part of
the Federal Republic of Germany that surrounded it.
Regards
LN
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Henry Hirose" <silentcity@h...>
wrote:
> "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...> writes:
>
> <<good point
> followed by a deafening silence
> for i am a little surprised our extraterritoriality mavens havent
responded
> nor even gasped out loud yet>>
>
> I was wondering the same thing. But I also feel that, if I
understand you
> correctly, that the conclusive reply was rather underwhelming.
> Extraterritoriality after all isn't sovereign territory, which would
have
> created bona fide enclaves and got a lot more people fired up.
>
> But I would venture to guess that the hon. consul is mistaken in his
> assumption. It may not be extraterritoriality but mere
"inviolability of
> their premises" just as in embassies. Traditional
extraterritoriality of
> land, as opposed to persons, seems virtually dead, with all cases of
> examples dating from the days of Western Imperialism that were all
given up
> or seized by the host countries. See here for examples:
>
> http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/E/extrater.html
>
> Cheers, HH