You are in a country, once your Passaporto is stamped and the sliding frosted glass Doors to the Kingdom guarded by policelike officials open up, upon which you see citizens waving signs waiting for firends in the Uncontrolled zone outside Customs. And you could say, that you passed through customs and are a now a visitor free to enjoy the hospitality of the host country.

I started a thread somewhere here in FT and what I was thinking when I asked how many airports you have visited, was something along the same lines.

I would list #1 and 2 as "Didn't even leave the plane. For countries, it's even worse, you don't get a stamp in the passport (which you rarely gets nowadays in Euorpe anyhow), but I wouldn't really call it having been in that country (unless you need to establish bragging rights, of course http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

#3 I would call "Changed planes" and it would go with the above, unless you have to go through Immigration, in which case it becomes

#4 which to me is to have visited the country.

/Pete

For our gang, its always been clearing customs. If you didn't clear customs you really weren't "in the country" -- no matter how you try to justify it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Potsdam?

Actually I suspect ceding control has happened in history FAR more than we might imagine!

I am a postage stamp dealer and as it happens was looking up a Gibbons catalogue today on this country and noticed this little piece for SARAWAK.

As many may know the "White Rajah" Brooke "dynasty" ruled this country from about mid 19th Century.

The Japanese Occupation ceased in 1945, after surrender and the BMA reached Kuching on September 11, 1945 and Australian postage stamps were used until new Sarawak ones could be printed.

This is what Stanley Gibbons goes on to say;

"The administarion of Sarawak was returned to the Brooke family on April 15, 1946, but the Rajah, after consulting the inhabitants ceded the territory to Great Britain on June 1 1946."



[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 08-09-2000).]

True enough, but these examples are typically the result of confederation, colonialization or decolonialization where a particular territory either seeks to integrate itself with a larger neighbour (e.g. Hawaii to the U.S.), seeks to secede (e.g. Croatia), or is decolonialized (e.g. Hong Kong).

In the cases of the Vatican, the UNO Headquarters, Camp Zeist and Princess Magriet's birthplace, the ceding countries were under no outside pressure to act, and ceded parts of their own internal territory to another jurisdiction.

Just out ofinterest:
Great Britain: This is Scotland, Wales and England.

United Kingdom: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

So to a previous post: Canada is not part of Great Britain (but I do believe you were stretching the imagination with your scenario)

.

[This message has been edited by james (edited 08-10-2000).]

Silverpie: Does this hold true for ST. Barts in the Carribean too. Can I really consider that France? Stats show that the St. Bart's airfield is one of the 10 busiest airports in France; probally due to small, frequent passenger traffic.


------------------
MRKEY

St. Barts is as much a part of France as Hawaii is a part of the United States.

The people of St. Barts elect deputies to the National Assembly, French Courts have jurisdiction, and the full range of French law is applicable (subject to whatever restrictions or exemptions are set out by the National Assembly).

Contrast this with the situation of Bermuda (or any other British Dependent Territory). They do not elect M.P.'s to Westminster, they have a separate judiciary (although most allow for ultimate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) and UK legislation does not apply to a dependent territory unless the statute says so, expressly.

My votes are, you have "been in" that country in all five examples.

If not, where were you???

Not so fast - when you are in the airplane, you might be in the country where the plane is registered: DELTA, AA etc. = USA. Born IN a DELTA = new US-Citizen.

Cruelbritannia,

What is Isle of Man, Jersey?

ozstamps,

reg. DC I looked in:
http://search.britannica.com/search?...ct+of+columbia

and fond this:

city and capital of the United States of America. The city is coextensive with the District of Columbia, whose site was agreed upon by Congress in 1790 as the permanent seat of government for the new...

Nope, a vessel is not the territory of its country of registry, and by extension, neither is an aircraft.

However, sovereign territories do have extraterritorial jurisdiction, and certain acts committed on board a vessel or within an aircraft may draw the jurisdiction of the law of the country of registry (but not a subordinate jurisdiction).

So, a United States judge (i.e. federal, not state) has jurisdiction over acts committed on an aircraft registered in the USA, however, the judge cannot hold Court within the aircraft unless it is on the ground in the USA or in US airspace.

Birth on an Airplane

Sorry, this is long--but for those of a legal bent (and I do mean bent), it is a fun subject.

Naturally, the answer varies according to the country of registry of the aircraft. Each country has its own nationality law, which will treat the situation differently.

In Canada, there is no question. A child born to non-Canadian parents, on a Canadian-registered aircraft, which is outside of Canadian airspace has no claim to Canadian citizenship.

For a US aircraft, there might be federal legislation on the subject. US lawyers, please feel free to illuminate me. However, my plain reading of Title III of the Immigration and Naturalization Act suggests that there is no provision for either US citizenship or US nationality for a child born to non US parents outside of US territory and its possessions. I am aware of nothing which purports to deem a United States aircraft or vessel to be the United States or one of its outlying possessions.

So what citizenship does the child have? Well, the old Conflicts of Laws rule was that you took the citizenship of your father, if you were born in wedlock, and the citizenship of your mother if you weren't. Many countries still apply this, while others have come up to date and confer nationality on the children of their nationals, regardless of the sex and marital status of the parent.

Worst case scenario would be a child born in International waters or airspace, to Stateless parents, neither of whom had a country of habitual residence (say, Refugees seeking resettlement not yet accepted by a signatory state to the Convention).

In my view, the child would not only be stateless, but the child would have no claim to a country of habitual residence (depending of the law of the country of registry).

But hey, how often is that really going to happen?