An international law question.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-19 02:46pm

Say I buy a bunch of land on the Mexico side of the US-Mexico border. Ok? Now, say I sell the land to the US government, or just plain give it to them. Have I expanded the sovereign territory of the United States? Is this allowed?

If it was, seems to me the US could conquer the world.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-04-19 02:57pm

The land would not become sovereign US territory unless the Mexican government formally ceded it to the US government.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-19 03:02pm

What's the difference? I bought it, right? I'm not trying to be stupid here, but I have the feeling I'm stupid anywy.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-04-19 03:06pm

The difference is Mexican law still rules over that land just like it does over all the other land in the country owned by vairous persons and such, and will until they say otherwise and cede sovereignty. What exactly is so hard to understand about this?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-04-19 03:15pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:What's the difference? I bought it, right? I'm not trying to be stupid here, but I have the feeling I'm stupid anywy.

Sovereignty and ownership are two different, legally distinct concepts. Legally the transfer of ownership does not affect the sovereignty of a given patch of land.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-19 05:39pm

For example, the United States owns much of the island of Okinawa, yet it is still considered to be under the sovereignty of Japan. I think.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-04-19 08:10pm

Just proclaim your property a soveriegn nation, refuse to pay taxes, and just see what happens.

Better yet, pass some "laws" contrary to those of your country.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-04-19 09:14pm

HemlockGrey wrote:For example, the United States owns much of the island of Okinawa, yet it is still considered to be under the sovereignty of Japan. I think.

I'm not sure. Some things like military bases and such are considered soveriegn US soil (the same goes for other countries of course). I think that largely depends upon the particulars of therelevant treaties and agreements.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-20 12:27am

Stormbringer wrote: I'm not sure. Some things like military bases and such are considered soveriegn US soil (the same goes for other countries of course). I think that largely depends upon the particulars of therelevant treaties and agreements.

Embassies are considered sovereign soil as are at least some US military bases, but this kind of thing is always done with atleast the grudging permission of the sovereign power. For example I seem to recall the US got its 99 year (or something similar) lease upon Guantanamo Bay when it was occupying Cuba shortly after the Spanish were kicked out and when the Cuban government really wasn’t in a position to refuse them anything. I’m pretty sure the Iraqi government will soon be required to sign similar documents creating sovereign American bases in the new improved free Iraq.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-20 12:54am

Plekhanov wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: I'm not sure. Some things like military bases and such are considered soveriegn US soil (the same goes for other countries of course). I think that largely depends upon the particulars of therelevant treaties and agreements.
Embassies are considered sovereign soil as are at least some US military bases, but this kind of thing is always done with atleast the grudging permission of the sovereign power. For example I seem to recall the US got its 99 year (or something similar) lease upon Guantanamo Bay when it was occupying Cuba shortly after the Spanish were kicked out and when the Cuban government really wasn’t in a position to refuse them anything. I’m pretty sure the Iraqi government will soon be required to sign similar documents creating sovereign American bases in the new improved free Iraq.

Guantanamo bay isn't a 99 year lease, its a lease in perpetuity. In order to cancel it, both sides have to agree.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-04-21 10:51am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:What's the difference? I bought it, right? I'm not trying to be stupid here, but I have the feeling I'm stupid anywy.

Actually, when you purchase land from the state, you're considered to be "leasing" land.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-04-21 10:57am

Stormbringer wrote: I'm not sure. Some things like military bases and such are considered soveriegn US soil (the same goes for other countries of course). I think that largely depends upon the particulars of therelevant treaties and agreements.

Under the laws enshrined in the United Nations, which all members of the United Nations are obliged to follow, all military vessels are considered soverign territory of the owner. So, when the US was shouting out loud that their plane is soverign US soil, they're correct.

Military bases are a different thing altogether. Military bases operated in another country is NOT, considered soverign territory of the owner. To use the example of the US, US bases in South Korea are not considered the territory of the US states. However, the US always slides in these issues during the negoiations about bases, such that US laws, military personnel etc etc etc, make it such that such bases are considered under US soverignty.