JISCMail - INT-BOUNDARIES Archives

Just a precisation: I think the case of the Vatican city is slightly different from that of other examples produced. The Vatican was a State that already occupied the territory were it is situated today, as well as much more. After the occupation of its whole territory by Italy, the Lateran Treaty provided for a "reitegration" of the Vatican State in a small portion of its former territory.
It does not seem like the Maldives (or other States in similar position) could have a similar claim.
Best wishes
Irini Papanicolopulu

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:09:20 -0000
Devashish Krishan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Another example would be the Vatican City. Territorial
>sovereignty is
> governed by Articles 3 and 4 of the Lateran Treaty which
>provide:
>
> "Article 3
> 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,
> thus creating the Vatican City, for the special purposes
>and under the
> conditions hereinafter referred to.
>
> The boundaries of the said City are set forth in the map
>called Annex I
> of the present Treaty, of which it is forms an integral
>part.
>
> It is furthermore agreed that, although forming part of
>the Vatican
> City, St. Peter's Square shall continue to be normally
>open to the
> public and shall be subject to supervision by the
>Italian police
> authorities, which powers shall cease to operate at the
>foot of the
> steps leading to the Basilica, although the latter shall
>continue to be
> used for public worship. The said authorities shall,
>therefore, abstain
> from mounting the steps and entering the said Basilica,
>unless and
> except they are requested to do so by the proper
>authorities.
>
> Should the Holy See consider it necessary, for the
>purpose of special
> ceremonies, temporarily to prohibit the public from free
>access to St.
> Peter's Square, the Italian authorities shall (unless
>specially
> requested to do otherwise) withdraw to beyond the outer
>lines of
> Bernini's Colonnade and the extension thereof.
>
> Article 4
> The sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction over the
>Vatican City, which
> Italy recognizes as appertaining to the Holy See, forbid
>any
> intervention therein on the part of the Italian
>Government, or that any
> authority other than that of the Holy See shall be there
>acknowledged."
>
> Relevant commentary is at:
>
> Herbert Wright, The Status of the Vatican City, 38 Am.
>J. Int'l L. 452
> (1944)
> Gordon Ireland, The State of the City of the Vatican, 27
>Am. J. Int'l L.
> 271 (1933).
>
>For background on the position of UNHQ, please see
>chapters IV and VII
> of Trygve Lie's memoir titled "In the Cause of Peace."
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Dev Krishan
>
> Devashish Krishan
> Baker Botts (UK) LLP
> London, England
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: International boundaries discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Leroux Nicolas
> Sent: 12 November 2008 15:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Maintaining the higher ground v. Stemming
>the Tide
>
>
>
> As a sequel to my earlier posting, and to your last
>posting:
>
>
>
> Bona fide examples of sovereignty being given away to a
>foreign
> nation include American military cemeteries in France.
>
>
>
> France gave away its sovereignty over a few acres of
>land in
> Normandy, where the US forces could set up a cemetery
>for soldiers
> fallen during the Second World War.
>
>
>
> The cemeteries are still considered as US territory
>today; they
> are guarded and maintained by US military personnel.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicolas Leroux
>
> Geneva
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: International boundaries discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Lowell G. McManus
> Sent: mercredi, 12. novembre 2008 16:54
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Maintaining the higher ground v. Stemming
>the Tide
>
>
>
> David A. Parish wrote:
>
>
>
> > The United States gave up sovereignty to a parcel of
>land in
> the midst of Manhattan.
>
> This is a common misconception about the UN
>headquarters in New
> York. Those 18 acres are known in US law as the "The
>United Nations
> Headquarters District."
>
> The full text of the 1946 agreement between the UN and
>the USA
> is found within the long web page at
>http://tinyurl.com/596xeh . When
> you get to the page, use your browser's "Find on this
>page" function to
> search for the word "Desiring" to go directly to the
>beginning of the
> agreement. If you don't want to read its 28 sections
>and two annexes,
> just pay particular attention to sections 7, 8, and 9.
> You will see
> that the UNHD is much more analogous to a diplomatic
>mission than to a
> sovereign entity. The agreement simply assures the UN
>that it and its
> members will be free to perform their proper functions
>within the UNHD
> without American interference.
>
> As to ownership of the 18 acres: The US government
>acquired the
> land by eminent domain for the UN, and the UN reimbursed
>it. The UN
> holds deeded legal title to the property, but ownership
>reverts to the
> US government or to city or the state if the UN vacates.
>
>
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Eagle Pass, Texas, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>
>   From: David A. Parish
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>   To: [log in to unmask]
>
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:59 AM
>
>   Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Maintaining the higher
> ground v. Stemming the Tide
>
>
>
>   Uhm... As a very interested party on borders and
> sovereignty, what really comes to mind is United Nations
>HQ in New York
> City.
>
>   The United States gave up sovereignty to a parcel of
> land in the midst of Manhattan.
>
>   Sooo, I would dare say, if a country is willing, it
>can
> be done, by treaty, of course.
>
>   Thoughts, please!
>
>   David A. Parish
>   Geneseo, New York
>   (Which is no where near UN HQ in New York)
>
>
> Baker Botts (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership
>registered in England and Wales (registered number
>OC333302) with its registered office at 41 Lothbury,
>London EC2R 7HF and is regulated by the Solicitors
>Regulation Authority. The term partner is used to refer
>to a member of Baker Botts (UK) LLP. The contents of this
>email are confidential and may be protected by legal
>privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>notify us as soon as possible: you should not copy,
>forward, disclose or use the contents. A list of members
>is at http://www.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/UKLLPList.htm