Colin, et al, Thanks for this. You have not misunderstood the doctrine at all, but you have not quite taken it to its full conclusion. The examples you cite involve interaction between the embassy and the outside world (pizza delivery, lease contracts, employment contracts of local staff, radio transmitters, and diplomatic vehicles maneuvering on host-country roads). Radio (wireless) is specifically covered in the Vienna Convention because radio waves propagate beyond the boundaries of the embassy. That said, if a murder is committed on embassy premises, the sending side has jurisdiction (in the case of the United States, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security of the U.S. Department of State). Once the lease is signed, the embassy cannot be evicted even if the rental payment is not paid (for a similar issue see this news item <https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/how-dc-plans-to-deal-with-derelict-embassies/485736302> about a derelict embassy building in Washington, DC). Once the embassy chancery is constructed, if the sending side decides to renovate the interior of the embassy, it is done in accord with sending-side construction standards, not necessarily host-country standards. No, pizza is not considered an export, but it is an item of trivial value akin to the duty-free bottle of fine single malt Scotch I brought back from Dubai two weeks ago; however, if I import 1,250 pounds of consumables via sea freight, they enter the host-country import statistics. Regarding personnel, host-country personnel must be hired and paid in accord with host-country law in most cases, though in many countries embassies pay in dollars despite host-country laws requiring payment in local currency and cite extraterritoriality as the legal grounds for this. Sending side personnel (like me) are hired, paid, and fired in accord with sending side rules, period. And yes, we pay fines, but we don't pay taxes. Please note that immunities and extraterritoriality are defined not only in the Vienna Convention at this point but also by court precedents established over the past 57 years, which is one reason the Department of State has a large staff of lawyers.
As to why the .gov top-level domain is used only by government bodies in the United States, that's because Al Gore DARPA invented the internet and DARPA is a U.S. institution, so we got first dibs, that's all. Many other governments use their two-byte country top-level domain with either go. or gov. in front of it, e.g., go.jp for the Japanese government, gov.uk for the UK government, and so on. In response to some of the comments, a) no, that doesn't mean the U.S. government is the only government, and I never said that; b) yes, these gov.xx and go.xx domains are used for embassies' and consulates' e-mail and websites, and c) the point I'm trying to make is that embassies and consulates are government offices, even if not of the host country--their staff are government employees, their budgets come from a government somewhere, and their property is government property. I believe we are approaching some sort of consensus that amenity=embassy is not adequate and that something needs to be done to correct this. Are we in agreement that a) consulates are not embassies; b) embassies and consulates are government offices, but there is no agreement that office=government is appropriate; c) neither is an amenity; d) office=diplomatic is a reasonable option that while not utterly precise is close enough (I don't love it but can live with it), and that in tandem with diplomatic=[embassy, consulate, etc.] would meet OSM guidelines? We're only five days into the RFC so lots of time left to comment! cheers, Allan Mustard apm-wa On 10/26/2018 1:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2018-10-26 03:26, Allan Mustard wrote: >> Under the legal doctrine of extraterritoriality, the embassy or >> consulate is considered to be located in the sending country for >> purposes of legal jurisdiction. Extraterritoriality is virtually >> unlimited in the case of an embassy; it is more limited in the case >> of a consulate but still exists > > Allan, > > That doesn't sound quite right. As I read the UN conventions, the > diplomatic staff have some immunities which are linked to their > personal status and not linked to their being in the embassy > buildings. The premises themselves are inviolable by the host state, > which means local laws sometimes cannot actually be enforced without > invitation from the Ambassador. However, the embassy as a premises is > still part of the receiving country. Delivering pizza to them is not > an export. The lease contract is under the laws of the host country. > Employment contracts for support staff can be under the law of > the host country. Their radio transmitters need to be licensed by the > host country. Diplomatic cars have to pay speeding fines and parking > tickets. But in the case of violations, the only sanction available to > the host country is basically withdrawal of recognition of diplomatic > staff. > > Have I misunderstood your interpretation of "extraterritoriality" >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
