Embassies are not foreign soil. That’s a UL. They are patches of the host country which are inviolate to domestic authorities in most cases, but they are nonetheless still part of the host country.
–Cliffy
A number of nations claim sovereignty on a “share” of Antarctica (this sharing being done like you would do with a pie, in straight lines all ending at the south pole). If I’m not mistaken, some of these “shares” overlap, since they have been unilaterally claimed hence there’s no real agreement over them. A number of other nations (including the USA) don’t recognize these claims.
The research stations are normally installed in each country’s claimed share of the continent.
I would understand it, Cliffy, as a sort of nation-level parallel to the distinction between fee simple ownership and an irrecovable perpetual lease. A nation owns the land it is located on or which it has as foreign possessions in the equivalent of fee simple. It may have extraterritorial rights (U.S. air and naval bases in other countries, the Russian mining settlement on Svalbard, embassies) which grant permanent use to portions of land, which nonetheless belong to the country in which they are located, much as I may have a long-term lease of property you own, whereby I can do what I choose with it, but it nonetheless remains your legal possession subject to my rights to it. Is this approximately how you’d understand the concept?
The United States and Canada share a number of islands along their border. Hill/Wellesley Island, near the Thousand Islands, is one example.
And there’s Taiwan which is shared by China and China.
Didn’t the Antarctic treaty place all these claims in abeyance?
John
Big Diomede (Russia) and Little Diomede (U.S.) off the coast of Alaska.
Hill and Wellesley Islands are separate physical entities. Imagine a fat capital L with a block in the angle of the L, and the narrowest of channels dividing them. Wellesley Island, all U.S., is the L; Hill Island, all Canada, is the block.
Yes and no. Argentina and Chile, in particular, are strong on the fact that theirs is still in place, because there are commercial ramifications for them. But none of them is playing “get off my territory” with their slice of the pie (literally!) and instead cooperating on the scientific and exploratory aspects of being in Antarctica.
Both Chinas claim it, but neither China is into sharing things like Taiwan. The Republic of China has defacto control of the whole island.
Poly – um, yeah.
Under the Vienna Convention on whatever it is, embassies and diplomats are cloaked in “invioability,” which means they cannot be entered or detained by domestic authorities. That means that you can do basically what you want in your embassy even if it might be violative of local law, and domestic authorities can do nothing about it in the immediate term. However, the place is still their soil and a host country can kick diplomats or the whole mission out at any time and for no reason, so that’s the ultimate penalty if you piss off the locals too much. Of course, if a diplomat commits a serious crime, it’s not unknown for the diplomat’s home country to revoke his immunity.
–Cliffy
Aren’t those two distinct islands, spearated by a mile or two of ocean through which the border (and the International Date Line) runs?
Machias Seal Island in the Bay of Fundy is claimed by both Canada and the USA. My Uncle Geordie is an occasional lighthouse keeper there, not because we need lighthouse keepers anymore, but because we want to assert our claim that it is Canadian.
Right, they’re termed “home countries” but they aren’t independent states. Scotland has a fair amount of autonomy and Wales and Northern Ireland somewhat less, whereas I believe the bureaucracy dealing with England (and in some cases England and Wales) is completely integrated into the government of the kingdom as a whole. So the result is a national unitary government which has devolved certain of its powers to the Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) governments, leaving it to deal with England (or England and Wales, as the case may be).
Or something. The point is they’re subnational, not entirely federal entities that happen to be termed “countries,” as Spain has autonomous communities, and so forth.
Slight quibble: they’re “Home Nations”. Other than that, I agree with all you said (except that the Northern Ireland assembly has never gotten off the ground.)
Usedom/Uznam in the Baltic. It’S 445 square kilometres, about a sixth of which belongs to Poland, the remainder to Germany.
Erm… Iceland is shared by two continents, does that count?
Dual claims are not the same thing. There are many islands with two or more countries claiming them. As an extreme case, the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea have five competing claims for part or all of them.
I could. But you basically nailed it.
There is an island in the Baltic Sea, off the north coast of Germany and Poland; the Germans call it Uznam and the Poles call it Usedom.Its territor is divided between Germany and Poland; on the Polish side is a city called Swinoujscie (Swinemuende by the Germans). The international boundary runs right across the island.