Then there’s “Immigrant Domain” which is, like, when the Europeans came to the Americas and, like, totally declared ownership of the land here.
It’s a low-calorie word salad to balance out the treats everyone eats at holiday time!
Very thoughtfully brought by our newest guest. Was anyone totally shocked at the join date? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
As much as I value Google’s ability to index this board (making the board’s own ineffective search ability irrelevant), I bemoan how it attracts seagulls like a landfill.
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned yet that this is a 14 year old thread. Is that a record?
US postage, by the way, does not work in UN headquarters. The UN has its own postage system. Mostly sold to collectors, to be sure, but independent of the US system.
In the last years of my father’s work at the UN, he worked out of offices in the Chrysler building. No diplomatic work there, but an interesting question is whether UN sovereignty applied there. I rather doubt it, but never thought about it before.
A lot of consulates (especially from poorer countries) are basically just rented space in an office building somewhere. I’m sure they get the same diplomatic protections (but not sovereignty - that’s a myth) as a fancy embassy.
If it’s UN-rented premises, then the same protection as that to the Headquarters along the East River, or to foreign embassies, applies. That means: the rented rooms remain part of U.S. territory, and the substantive law of the United States, the State of New York, and the City of New York applies, but the jurisdiction of American authorities to enter the rooms is limited and requires prior permission from the UN. It is a myth that diplomatic premises such as embassies are extraterritorial; they remain territory of the host state, but the jurisdiction of host state authorities to enter them is restricted.
Not in the least. Most of the '99 threads have been revived.
Not even close. We’ve had threads resurrected from 1999. IIRC, one was so old it had no usernames attached to it.
But the Rockefellers retained the ownership of most of the land around the UN site – which greatly increased in value once the UN headquarters was built. The increase in value of this remaining land more than covered the cost of donating the site to the UN (except that the donation itself was tax-deductible, of it cost Rockefeller nothing).
So as a legal matter the US maintains it can storm any embassy at any time it wants but just chooses to play by the same rules as everyone else?
So if I commit a crime inside the French embassy am I prosecuted under French law or US law? If US law is it only because the US agrees to it on a case-by-case basis? So, for instance, if Jared Kushner kick the French ambassador in the nuts inside the French embassy president Trump could stop his prosecution under French law for assault?
American law would apply by virtue of the principle of territoriality crime having been committed on American soil). This would not exclude that other criminal laws of other nations might also apply, e.g. the personality principle (law of the country whose nationality the perpetrator or the victim possessed). What is restricted, though, is the ability of America authorities to enter the embassy premises to go and get you.
You are prosecuted under US law. But law enforcement won’t come in and get you without permission from the French government. You could also be prosecuted under French law arguing the French criminal code allows extraterritorial prosecutions.
Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk