whatever this lovely parcel was
it was a military emplacement from beginning to end
& a superimposition of de facto reality upon & within a preexisting state territory
aka a de facto clave
or in other words
a commonplace
albeit with an exotic purpose
& accordingly unusual accoutrements
to call it an extraterritorial territory or parcel
or to say it enjoyed a status of extraterritoriality
even after the surrounding territory was reconstituted
would be a misuse of english
people can of course have a status of extraterritoriality
in the sense of both being exempt from local jurisdiction
& of being under the jurisdiction of their home country when abroad
as the word is commonly used in both these senses
but territorial extraterritoriality
if ever there was any
was extinguished by the vienna treaty of 1961
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> 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