Hi.
I don't think we have a disagreement - I'm just engaging in open
thinking rather than internal ruminating about it, trying to logically
come to a conclusion... I think we all agree it is how the two states
see it, and what is "on the ground" that applies.
I don't know about other countries in this respect, but the trend of
law in the US is not to go around establishing precedences. I have a
feeling that we'll never get "closure" without looking into Italian
and diplomatic legal cases, administrative agreements based on the
treaty provisions, and other underlying documents.
I appreciate the mental exercize respondees have provided - your
interpretation of endowments, etc., was a real shocker for me. I
could buy that with respect to endownments, as in art and scholastic
gifts to institutions (like the Vatican), but not with
"appurtenances". If I hung a lantern on a wall that forms the border
the day before the treaty was signed, and it hangs, as in Berlin, over
the Italian airspace, I guess the treaty covers it as being a
sovereign Vatican lantern - if you define "Appurtenance" as you did.
I don't think the treaty would treat movable objects by using
appurtenance that way - they'd be covered in ways that treaties cover
ownership.
Regards
Len Nadybal
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Andrew T. Patton" <andrew@A...> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:41:08 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >Andrew quoted the Lateran Treaty:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >Finish the quote from this Article - you left off the jewels.
> >
> >Len
>
> The part I did not put in "appurtenances and endowments" which you
> describe in a later message as
>
> >"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.
>
> To me "appurtenances and endowments" means to me the buildings in
The
> Vatican, the art work in The Vatican, the cars, etc. in other words
> everything but the land of The Vatican.
>
> With regards to your comments on Article 14, it seems a convoluted
way
> to describe sovereignty and ownership of the external sites. These
> could have easily been covered in Article 3. But there were not and
in
> Article 14 we just refer to ownership.
>
> Maybe we should agree to disagree on this or wait until someone like
> Brendan give us some insight. As mentioned in the last part of my
last
> message, as I read the treaty Italy has given up sovereignty in all
> but name on these site to the Holy See. It is a matter of
> interpretation of what enclave/extraterritorality means to you and
me.
>
> I wonder what
> --
> Andrew T. Patton WWW: http://www.AndrewPatton.com
> Fairfax, VA, USA E-Mail: andrew@A...