My English is not that good that I know what appurtenances and
endowments are supposed to mean in this context, so I believe your
explanation immediately. Just a couple of thoughts:
The original language would be Italian. I wonder what is said there.
The fact that I have never seen a map depicting all these detached
pieces of land as Vatican exclaves, like the Baarle-Hertog exclaves
are depicted on a map. Up to seeing this little map on your web site
(not covering everything either). Are all these map makers ignorant??
The necessity of all this talk of property, when all these parts are
part of a sovereign Vatican state.
In short, I am not yet convinced.
Anyway, the latest news from the electrosmog case is that it has been
thrown out of court:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1829000/1829476.s
tm . Of course, the Lateran treaty got in the way.
Peter S.
--- 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