--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "lnadybal" <lnadybal@h...> wrote:
> In a reply to my question about German cemetary in the Vatican,
> Andrew replied:
>
> "There are no enclaves/exclaves within the Vatican or
> Vatican exclaves/enclaves outside of the Vatican. The Vatican has
> extraterritorial on several buildings in Rome, but extraterritorial
> is just an administrative/juristically matter not a sovereignty
> one."
>
> I'm not so sure I agree with that, especially with respect to the
> exclaves of the Vatican. The question of what is or is not an
> international level exclave does turn on the sovereignty issue
> PLUS whether or not one can legitimately draw an international
> boundary around.
>
> Sovereignty has four aspects:
>
> a. Sovereign rights of the state "occupying" the land (not in
> the sense of military occupation, but in the sense of a daily
> operational presence),
>
> b. the exclusion of sovereign rights of the surrounding party
> witin the occupied area,
>
> c. the degree to which the occupying party allows application
> of the "trappings of sovereignty" of the surrounding state to
> operate inside the occupied area, and
>
> d. "titular sovereignty". (If I give up my sovereignty in the
> area, does it revert to you without my having a choice in the
> matter? If so, you have "titular sovereignty"). See the Canal
> Zone treaty between the US and Panama for such a situation.
>
> With respect to the Vatican and "c.", we must be careful. Just
> because the Vatican, for example, might apply Italian postal rates
> to its mail, for example, and just because the Italian post office
> may come into the Vatican to pick up and deliver, doesn't mean
> Italians have gained sovereign right to run postal operations in
> the Vatican - or that Italy has a titular right to operate the
> postal system in the Vatican IF the Vatican were to discontinue its
> operation - it only means that the Vatican, in exercize of its
> sovereign right allowed the Italians to "meddle" to a certain
> degree in the operation of postal services inside the Vatican.
> That the Vatican might use Italian money, means it allowed it
> within it's jurisdiction, or agreed by treaty (as a sovereign
> treaty power) to let the Italian banknotes and coins circulate. It
> could have kept the Vatican Lira in place, issued it's own Vatican
> lira banknotes and coins and not accepted the Euro,
> for instance.
>
> So, how does this relate to the Vatican exclaves? Take the Vatican
> radio transmitter. It's on a plot of land outside the grounds on
> which St. Peters Basilica sits. Can you draw an international
> border around the Vatican? Yes. Can you draw an international
> border around the plot on which the transmitter sits? I think so.
> Woudl it be an invasion of Vatican territory if Italian police
> stormed the transmitter site to shut it down? I think so. Do the
> Italians have any sovereign right to say what the Vatican will do
> with it's transmitter? I don't think so - only to the extent that
> the Vatican stipulated in the treaty or agreement about the site,
> that it wants, would like or would permit the Italians to exercise
> some suthority inside the place to free the Vatican from having to
> duplicate the effort or pay to provide some service itself that the
> Italians already have in place and could perhaps do more
> efficiently. In such situations, the Italians would be acting as
> agents of the Vatican, helping the Vatican administer its sovereign
> rights in an agreed upon way. In other words, the Vatican can tell
> the Italians to stay out of the transmitter site, even IF it had a
> teaty. That would be an abrogation, but the Vatican has the right
> of a sovereign to abrogate a treaty over the site.
>
> How about Castelgondolfo? The Pope's residence. I have a hard
> time thinking that the grounds of Castelgondolfo are really
> Italian, and that the Pope does not enjoy sanctuary there and that
> Italian rule is not totally excluded. His kitchen and bathroom
> might get water from Italy; that's a business arrangement - but I
> doubt whether Italian regulations on the size and makeup of pipes
> that carry the water is something that the Pope has to pay any mind
> to. I draw a border around Castelgondolfo, too.
>
> The other buildings in Rome? I don't know enough about how they
> are regulated in the treaty to say what I'd do about them - treat
> them as exclaves or like embassies. What if one burned down?
> Would the Italians say "oops! Can't go there."
>
> Regards
>
> Len Nadybal
Every time I have found a definition of the Vatican I usually see
something what is at the CIA World Factbook web site which states :
That the Vatican is ... urban; landlocked; enclave of Rome, Italy;
world's smallest state; outside the Vatican City, 13 buildings in
Rome and Castel Gandolfo (the pope's summer residence) enjoy
extraterritorial rights.
And the my understanding of extraterritorial rights is that the
building are the propery of the Holy See, the buildings are
controlled by the Holy See, but that Soverignty is Italian. What can
be done in the sites is dictated by bilateral agreements between
Italy and the Holy See. If you do a search on Santa Maria di Galeria,
where the transmitters are located, you will see discussions about a
bilateral treaty which was updated about this on May 18, 2001.
In your discussion above you discuse drawing internation borders
around the Vatican sites but the Italian do not draw a border as it
is their land, but with extraterritorial rights to the Holy See -
just like an embassy has.
So what we have is a disgreement on what an enclave is and what
sovereignty means. An enclave to me is an area like Baarle - one
country surrounding completly a piece of an country. The country of
the surronded bit has control of the land and can do what every it
wants to do on that land. Therefore it has complete sovereignty on
that land.
An an area with extraterritorial rights is something that is dictated
by an agreement between two states and that hs limited scope to what
can the area be used for which makes it non-soverign to the guest
country.
The agreement if bronken is like a contract and would be decided in
court or arbitration. The host country would legally have the power
to evict the guest country if it failed to follow the agreement.
-Andrew