In my previous msg, I had a link - it wrapped to two lines, and is
therefore not going to work. You'll have to type it in manually.
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "lnadybal" <lnadybal@h...> wrote:
> I think the important part you all missed is at the front of the
> treaty, at Article 4:
>
> "Italy recognizes the full ownership, exclusive dominion, and
> sovereign authority and jurisdiction of the Holy See over the
Vatican
> as at present constituted, together with all its appurtenances and
> endowments..."
>
> "Appurtenances" are smaller things joined to the larger more
important
> part - i.e. appendages, properties, and yes, could even include
> exclaves.
>
> Endowments probably wasn't meant to include detached parts - but
> something enhancing the main body.
>
> Paragraphs 14 and thereabouts can cover real property ownership of
> buidings, without talking of sovereignty at all, because the Italian
> state could have kept real property ownership of a building while
> giving the Vatican sovereignty over the land on which it sits. At
> that point, Italy would own property in another country; the Vatican
> would then have to decide if it wanted to make an agreement with
Italy
> to make the ground in the exclave on which the building sits into an
> extraterritorial area. This is why I think you have to turn to
> Articles 1-4 as the more appropriate places to get a legal reading
on
> this issue.
>
> If you go to my website, I posted there a Vatican exclave map from
> Geographical Journal in 1931, that Brendan sent me almost two years
> ago. The author writes of "extraterritorial" areas but with
specific
> plots at Castelgondolfo as being a "dependance". The pope has had
> sovereignty over this from prior to the Lateran Treaty (I think even
> so far back that it may be the only leftover spec in existence
without
> break from the Papal States in central Italy, over which the Pope
> clearly had sovereignty).
>
>
http://exclave.info/current/religiousstates/vatican/vaticanexclaves/ge
> ojournalgb1931-vatican.jpg
>
> Regards
> LN in DC
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "shocktm" <andrew@A...> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "gerardkeating" <gerard@o...> wrote:
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., <marcelmiquel@n...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've found the text of the Lateran treaty on the net. It
> > clarifies
> > > > status of the extraterritorial possessions.The adress is:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/treaty.htm
> > > >
> > >
> > > From a reading of this text, Is the "Papal Palace of Castel
> > Gandolfo"
> > > and enclave of the Vatican City State ???
> >
> > The key articles are #3, #13-16.
> >
> > Article 3 indicates that "Italy recognizes the full ownership,
> > exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction of
the
> > Holy See over the Vatican". Key words here are sovereign
authority.
> > This creates the Vatican City State.
> >
> > Article #13 and #14 reconginize/give ownership of several
buildings
> > including Castel Gandolfo. Key wording here ownership and the lack
> of
> > the words sovereign authority.
> >
> > Article #15 gives extraterritorial to certin buildings. What
rights
> > extraterritorial has is dictated by international law.
> >
> > Article #16 exempts the sites from taxation. The fact that a
> > sovereign authority owns land does not exempted it from taxes
unless
> > agreed to like this. It also exempts the sites from all Italian
> > juristiction.
> >
> > This is where the debate can occur, I see that soverignty has not
> > been given to the Holy See over these sites but that Italy has
given
> > all rights to them to the Holy See and has no recorse on the
matter
> > unless the Holy See says so. Which means that the sites are
> sovereign
> > parts of the Holy See in all but name. So one could call them
> > enclaves or on could not. As soverignty has not been given (even
> > though everything else has been given) I would not call them
> > enclaves, but that is my opinon.
> >
> > -Andrew