View source for Extraterritoriality

{{Short description|State of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2020}}
{{Extraterritorialities}}

In [[international law]], '''extraterritoriality''' or '''exterritoriality''' is the state of being exempted from the [[jurisdiction]] of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations.

Historically, this primarily applied to individuals, as jurisdiction was usually claimed on peoples rather than on lands.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=9}} Extraterritoriality can also be partly applied to physical places. For example, such is the immunity granted to [[diplomatic mission]]s, [[military base]]s of foreign countries, or offices of the [[United Nations]]. The three most common cases recognized today internationally relate to the persons and belongings of foreign [[heads of state]] and [[head of government|government]], the persons and belongings of [[ambassador]]s and other [[diplomat]]s, and ships in [[international waters]].[[File:SanPaoloFuoriLeMura1.jpg|thumb|Plaque on an external wall of the [[Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls]] ([[Rome]]) indicating its extraterritorial status]]

== Forms ==
In the past, pre-modern states generally claimed sovereignty over persons, creating something known as [[personal jurisdiction]].{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=9}} As people move between borders, this led, in the framework of a territorial jurisdiction, to certain persons being under the laws of countries in which they did not reside. Extraterritoriality, in this sense, emerges from the interaction of these two conceptions of jurisdiction, personal and territorial, when laws are applied based on ''who'' a person is rather than ''where'' they are.

Extraterritoriality can now take various forms. Most famous are examples of diplomatic extraterritoriality, where diplomats and their belongings [[Diplomatic immunity|do not operate]] under the laws of their host nations, but rather, under the laws of the diplomat's nation.

Similarly, many nations claim the right to prosecute foreign combatants and violators of human rights under doctrines of [[universal jurisdiction]], irrespective of the nationality of those persons or the place in which the alleged crimes occurred.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=182}} This extends to domestic criminal codes as well: for example, the [[People's Republic of China]] claims the right to prosecute Chinese citizens for crimes committed abroad{{sfn|Cassel|2012|pp=182–183}} and Canada will prosecute [[sexual abuse of minors]] by a Canadian anywhere in the world.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/child-crime|title=Child Sex Tourism : It's a Crime|first=Foreign Affairs|last=Government of Canada|date=16 November 2012|website=Travel.gc.ca}}</ref>

In some military and commercial agreements, nations cede legal jurisdiction for foreign bases or ports to other countries. For example, Japan cedes jurisdiction over American military bases on its soil in [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]] to [[Military tribunals in the United States|US military tribunals]] pursuant to a bilateral status of forces agreement.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=183}}

In [[maritime law]], a ship in international waters is governed by the laws of the jurisdiction in which that ship is registered. This can be conceived of as a form of extraterritoriality, where a nation's jurisdiction extends beyond its border.

==Historical cases==

===14th century===
During the 13th and 14th centuries, the Italian [[Thalassocracy|sea republics]] of [[Republic of Genoa|Genoa]], [[Republic of Venice|Venice]] and [[Pisa]] obtained extraterritoriality for their merchants who operated in designated quarters ([[Beyoğlu|Pera]] and [[Galata]]) in the Byzantine capital, [[Constantinople]], as well as in Egypt and the Barbary states.<ref>Jules Davids, and Jonathan M. Nielson, "Extraterritoriality." in ''Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy'' ed. by Alexander DeConde et al. (2002) 2:81.</ref>

===Ottoman Empire===
[[Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire|A series of capitulations]] were made in the form of treaties between the [[Sublime Porte]] and Western nations, from the sixteenth through the early nineteenth centuries.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=12}} The legal impenetrability of the Ottoman legal code created during the [[Tanzimat]] era began to weaken continuously through the spread of European empires and the prevalence of [[legal positivism]].

The laws and regulations created for Ottoman subjects to abide by often did not apply to European nationals conducting business and trade in the provinces of the empire, and thus various capitulations were brought into effect with respect to many foreign powers. The various overlapping governmental laws led to legal pluralism in which jurisdiction often was left up to the great powers to institute and organize their own legal structures to represent their citizens abroad.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Curley|first1=T. M.|title=Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China|journal=Journal of Politics |date=2011 |volume=73 |issue=2 |pages=622–624 |doi=10.1017/S0022381611000235 }}</ref>

The capitulations ceased to have effect in [[Turkey]] in 1923, by virtue of the [[Treaty of Lausanne]], and in [[Egypt]] they were abolished by the [[Montreux Convention Regarding the Abolition of the Capitulations in Egypt|Montreux Convention]] in 1949.

===British India===
During the [[World War II|Second World War]], the military personnel of the [[Allies of World War II|Allied forces]] within the [[British Raj]] were governed by their own military codes by the ''Allied Forces Ordinance, 1942''<ref>{{cite act|title= Allied Forces Ordinance, 1942|type= Ordinance|number= LVI|date= 26 October 1942|url= http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf}} {{Cite web |url=http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=28 February 2015 |archive-date=4 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052600/http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> and the members of the [[United States Armed Forces]] were entirely governed by their own laws, even in criminal cases.<ref>{{cite act|title= Allied Forces (United States of America) Ordinance, 1942|type= Ordinance|number= LVII|date= 26 October 1942|url= http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf}} {{Cite web |url=http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=28 February 2015 |archive-date=4 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052600/http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===United States===
Historically, the United States has had extraterritoriality agreements with 15 nations with non-Western legal systems: [[Algeria]], [[Borneo]], China, Egypt, Iran, Japan, South Korea, [[Libya]], [[Madagascar]], Morocco, [[Samoa]], [[Tanzania]], [[Thailand]], [[Tunisia]], and the [[Ottoman Empire]].<ref>Jules Davids, and Jonathan M. Nielson, "Extraterritoriality." in ''Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy'' ed. by Alexander DeConde et al. (2002) 2:81–92.</ref>  Americans in the military or civilians working on American military bases overseas generally have extraterritoriality, so they can only be tried by the U.S. military. This is regulated by a [[status of forces agreement]].<ref>Glenn R. Schmitt, "Closing the Gap in Criminal Jurisdiction over Civilians Accompanying the Armed Forces Abroad-A First Person Account of the Creation of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000." ''Catholic University Law Review'' 51 (2001): 55–134 [https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=lawreview online].</ref><ref>R. Chuck Mason, ''Status of Forces Agreement: What Is It, and How Has it Been Utilized?'' (Congressional Research Service, 2009) [https://books.google.com/books?id=wEKEzORShG0C&dq=%22Status+of+Forces+Agreements:%22&pg=PA1 online].</ref>

===Canada===
	
[[Princess Margriet of the Netherlands]] was born on 19 January 1943 in [[The Ottawa Hospital|Ottawa Civic Hospital]] in Ottawa, Ontario, as the family had been living in Canada since June 1940 after the [[Netherlands in World War II#German Occupation|occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany]]. The maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital in which Princess Margriet was born was [[Extraterritoriality of Princess Margriet's birth|temporarily declared to be extraterritorial]] by the Canadian government.<ref>{{cite news|title = Proclamation|url = https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?app=cangaz&IdNumber=7865&new=-8585539630388797523|newspaper = [[Canada Gazette]]|date = 26 December 1942}}</ref> Making the maternity ward outside of the Canadian domain caused it to be unaffiliated with any jurisdiction and technically [[international territory]]. This was done to ensure that the newborn would derive her citizenship from [[Juliana of the Netherlands|her mother]] only, thus making her solely Dutch, which could be very important had the child been male, and as such, the heir of Princess Juliana.<ref name="cbc-princess">{{cite web|title=Netherlands' Princess Margriet born in Ottawa|url=https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1403696302|website=CBC Archives|publisher=Canada Broadcasting Corporation}}</ref>

===East Asia===
The most famous cases of extraterritoriality in East Asia are those of 19th century China, Japan, and Siam, emerging from what is termed the "[[Unequal treaty|unequal treaties]]". The practice of extraterritoriality, however, was not confined to the 19th century or these nations,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cassel|first=Pär|date=2004|title=Excavating Extraterritoriality: The "Judicial Sub-Prefect" as a Prototype for the Mixed Court in Shanghai|journal=Late Imperial China|volume=24|issue=2|pages=156–82|doi=10.1353/late.2004.0003|s2cid=144313731}}</ref> as the monarchs and governments of pre-modern East Asia primarily claimed sovereignty over people rather than tracts of land.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=8}}

====China====
[[File:International Mixed Court at Shanghai.jpg|thumb|right|A hearing of the International Mixed Court at Shanghai, {{Circa|1905}}]]

The creation of extraterritoriality for treaty nations "was not introduced into East Asia ''ex novo'', but built atop a long-standing legal edifice".<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Thai|first=Philip|date=May 2015|title=Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan. By Pär Kristoffer Cassel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. xi, 260 pp. $41.95 (cloth).|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-studies/article/grounds-of-judgment-extraterritoriality-and-imperial-power-in-nineteenthcentury-china-and-japan-by-par-kristoffer-cassel-oxford-oxford-university-press-2012-xi-260-pp-4195-cloth/76F6CEB9CA76EA480BE575AC723DDEA8|journal=The Journal of Asian Studies|language=en|volume=74|issue=2|pages=459–460|doi=10.1017/S0021911815000133|issn=0021-9118|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Jurisdiction in [[Qing dynasty|Qing China]], with differential treatment for [[Han Chinese|Han]] and [[Manchu people|Manchu]] subjects, was not determined by geography, but rather, by the identity of the subjects.<ref name=":0" /> For example, the ruling Manchu elite possessed legal privileges which placed them outside the jurisdiction of local ethnically Chinese administrators.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=12}}

Before the 1842 [[Treaty of Nanking]], which ended the [[First Opium War]], foreign merchants were not satisfied with the state of the Qing legal system. Prior to the Treaty, British merchants were only able to trade in the region of Canton, exclusively with Chinese merchants called Cohongs.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://china.usc.edu/treaty-nanjing-nanking-1842|title = Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking), 1842|website = US-China Institute|publisher = University of Southern California}}</ref> Chinese merchants benefitted significantly out of the deal, contributing to the British dissatisfaction with the Chinese. British merchants were "suspicious of what they regarded as a tendency in the Qing legal order to impose collective responsibility; they were also resentful of the Qing practice of meting out capital punishment in cases of accidental manslaughter".{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=43}} After the [[Lady Hughes Affair|''Lady Hughes'' affair]], a controversial 1784 incident where a British sailor was executed for fatally wounding two Chinese subjects while firing a [[gun salute]], [[East India Company]] officials generally spirited away Britons before Qing officials could react.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=43}}

Grants of extraterritoriality were regular in China. In the 1830s, when the Qing government concluded a treaty with the Uzbek khanate of Khoqand, it granted extraterritorial privileges to its traders. And in dealing with foreign merchants through the centuries, the Qing government rarely attempted to impose jurisdiction based on territorial sovereignty, instead entrusting the punishment of foreigners to the respective authority in practically all cases except homicide.{{Sfn|Cassel|2012|p=47}}

At the negotiations of the [[Treaty of Nanking|Treaty of Nanjing]], Qing negotiators readily extended a grant of extraterritoriality. Cassel writes "the imperial commissioner and Manchu nobleman [[Keying (official)|Qiying]] readily conceded extraterritorial privileges to the British in an exchange of notes with [[Henry Pottinger|Pottinger]] [the British plenipotentiary] at the time of the conclusion of the treaty".{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=51}} This was in line with Qing practices at the time, where sovereignty was held by peoples rather than imposed on lands.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=52}}

A more formal declaration of extraterritoriality was concluded in the 1843 Supplementary [[Treaty of the Bogue]], which established that "Britons were to be punished according to [[English law]] and Chinese were to be 'tried and punished by their own laws'".{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=52}} These provisions only applied to the treaty ports, since foreigners were barred from entering the Chinese interior.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=60}}

Under imperial edict earlier in the year, these privileges were extended to most western countries. Other nations wanted reassurances and guarantees. For example, the United States negotiated the 1844 [[Treaty of Wanghia]], which stated in article 21:

{{blockquote|Subjects of China who may be guilty of any criminal act towards citizens of the United States shall be arrested and punished by the Chinese authorities according to the laws of China, and citizens of the United states who may commit any crime in China shall be subject to be tried and punished only by the Consul or other public functionary of the United States thereto authorised according to the laws of the United States.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=53}}}}

The Wanghia treaty included an exception for American trading in opium and also subjected American ships trading outside treaty ports to confiscation by the Chinese government in articles 33 and 3.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=53}} Similarly, the French also pursued protections in the [[Treaty of Huangpu]], which further introduced a distinction between criminal and civil jurisdiction (non-existent in Qing dynasty law) and gave Frenchmen the full protections of Chinese law outside concessionary areas.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=54}}

The 1858 Sino-British [[Treaty of Tientsin]], which ended the [[Second Opium War]], expanded the rights of western visitors. They were permitted to enter the Chinese interior after passporting. However, extraterritorial rights were not extended outside the treaty ports.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|pp=60–61}} Similar rights were granted to the interested western powers due to the "most-favoured-nation" clause: all privileges the Qing empire granted to one power were automatically granted to the others. In 1868, when the Tientsin treaties were renegotiated, British merchants clamoured to lift the travel restrictions on the Chinese interior. The Qing position was adamantly opposed, unless extraterritoriality was also abolished. No compromise was reached; and the Qing government was successful in preventing foreigners from visiting the Chinese interior with extraterritorial privileges.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|pp=61–62}}

Extraterritorial rights were not limited to Western nations. Under the 1871 [[Sino-Japanese Friendship and Trade Treaty]], [[Empire of Japan|Japan]] and China granted each other reciprocal extraterritorial rights.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=84}} China itself imposed reciprocal extraterritoriality rights for its own citizens in [[Joseon|Joseon Korea]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kim|first=Marie Seong-Hak|date=2013-11-29|title=Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan by Pär Kristoffer Cassel (review)|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/527153|journal=Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies|language=en|volume=73|issue=2|pages=382–392|doi=10.1353/jas.2013.0022|s2cid=191484811|issn=1944-6454|url-access=subscription}}</ref>{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=84}} However, in 1895, under the [[Treaty of Shimonoseki]] after the [[First Sino-Japanese War]], China gave up its extraterritorial rights in Japan, without reciprocity.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=13}}

===== International Mixed Court =====
By far the most important of the treaty ports established after 1842 was Shanghai, where the vague extraterritoriality provisions of the various treaties were most sophisticatedly implemented. The two main courts judging extraterritorial cases were the [[Shanghai Mixed Court]] and the [[British Supreme Court for China]].{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=63}} Similar courts were established for treaty countries, e.g. the [[United States Court for China]].<ref>{{cite journal|last = Helmick|first = Milton J. |title = United States Court for China|jstor = 3021415|publisher = [[Institute of Pacific Relations]]|journal = Far Eastern Survey|volume = 14|issue = 18|pages = 252{{endash}}255|date = 12 September 1945|doi=10.2307/3021415}}</ref> These had jurisdiction over the concession areas, which formally remained under Qing sovereignty.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=64}} Initially, Chinese people who committed crimes in, say, the British zone, were remanded to Chinese authorities.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=65}}

===== End of extraterritoriality in China =====
By the early 20th century, some Western powers were willing to relinquish extraterritorial rights given the improved state of Chinese legal reform.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=175}} For example, the 1902 Sino-British "[[Mackay Treaty|Mackay treaty]]"{{'s}} article 12 read:

{{blockquote|China having expressed a strong desire to reform her judicial system ... [the United Kingdom] will ... be pretreated to relinquish her extra-territorial rights when she is satisfied that the state of the Chinese laws, the arrangement for her administration, and other considerations warrant her in so doing.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=175}}}}

Qing law did not make a formal distinction between criminal and civil law.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=53}} While efforts at legal reform were pursued in earnest in the last decade of the Qing dynasty,{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=175}} what was actually achieved failed to meaningfully address this lack of law in the areas of contracts, trade, or commerce.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=162}}

After the collapse of the Chinese government in 1911 and the ensuing administrative vacuum, the Chinese members of the Mixed Court were subsequently appointed by the Western powers, placing all inhabitants of the international settlement under ''de facto'' foreign jurisdiction.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=177}}<ref>{{cite book |last= Stephens|first= Thomas B.|title= Order and Discipline in China: The Shanghai Mixed Court, 1911–27|year= 1992|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=82fZOMsKjk4C&pg=PP1|publisher= [[University of Washington Press]]|isbn= 0-295-97123-1|access-date= 23 January 2014}}</ref> The success of the [[Northern Expedition]] in strengthening the authority of the Chinese republic in the mid-1920s led many governments to give up their more minor treaty ports without a fight.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=178}} However, the treaty powers were unwilling to give up Shanghai, or their privileges within it, which remained the most prominent economic centre and treaty port. It was only after a confrontation between Shanghai police and Nationalist demonstrators in 1925 that Chinese authorities refused to enforce the verdicts of the Mixed Court; this led to its disestablishment in 1927 and replacement with a Chinese-run local court.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=178}}

In 1921, at the [[Washington Naval Conference|Conference on the Limitation of Armament in Washington]], an international treaty called the [[Nine-Power Treaty]] was signed which expressed the willingness of the parties to end extraterritoriality in China once a competent legal system was established by China.<ref>{{cite journal |first=C. G. |last=Fenwick |title=The Nine Power Treaty and the Present Crisis in China |journal=American Journal of International Law |volume=31 |issue=4 |year=1937 |pages=671–674 |jstor=2190677}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Resolution Regarding Extraterritoriality in China|url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0329.pdf|website=Library of Congress|publisher=US Government Printing Office|access-date=12 February 2018}}</ref> As a result, a commission was established in 1926 that published a detailed report which contained its findings and recommendations for the Chinese legal system.<ref name="comm-report">{{cite web|title=Report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, Peking, September 16, 1926|url=http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001153343|website=Hathi Trust Digital Library|publisher=Commission on Extraterritoriality in China|access-date=12 February 2018}}</ref>

Extraterritoriality in China for non-diplomatic personnel ended at various times in the 20th century. Germany and [[Austria-Hungary]] lost their rights in China in 1917 after China declared war on them.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=177}} The Soviet Union made secret agreements that kept its rights until 1960, although it publicly falsely stated that it gave them up in 1924.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Bruce A. |last=Elleman |title=The End of Extraterritoriality in China: The Case of the Soviet Union, 1917–1960 |journal=Republican China |volume=21 |issue=2 |year=1996 |pages=65–89}}</ref>

In 1937, the status of the various foreign powers was thus:<ref>{{cite journal|last = Wan|first = Ching-Chun|title = China Still Waits the End of Extraterritoriality|url = http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/69752/ching-chun-wang/china-still-waits-the-end-of-extraterritoriality|publisher = [[Council on Foreign Relations]]|journal = [[Foreign Affairs]]|date = July 1937}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Status of extraterritoriality with respect to China (1937)
|- 
! style="width: 150px;" | Ceased to have effect !!style="width: 150px;" | No extraterritorial rights !!style="width: 150px;" | Will surrender privileges "when all other powers do so" !!style="width: 150px;" | Rights continued to have effect
|- style="vertical-align:top" class="plainlist"
|
*{{flag|German Empire|name=Germany}}
*{{flag|Austria-Hungary}}
*{{flagicon|Hungary|1920}} [[Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)|Hungary]]
*{{flagicon|Spain|1931}} [[Second Spanish Republic|Spain]]
*{{flag|Mexico|1916}} (lapsed in 1928)
|
*{{flagicon|Bolivia}} [[History of Bolivia (1920–1964)|Bolivia]]
*{{flagicon|Chile}} [[Presidential Republic (1925–1973)|Chile]]
*{{flagicon|Czechoslovakia}} [[First Czechoslovak Republic|Czechoslovakia]]
*{{flag|Finland}}
*{{flagicon|Greece|old}} [[Second Hellenic Republic|Greece]]
*{{flagcountry|Pahlavi dynasty|1925}}
*{{flagicon|Poland}} [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]]
*{{flag|Turkey}}
*{{flagicon|Cuba|1902}} [[Republic of Cuba (1902–1959)|Cuba]]
*{{flag|Uruguay}}
*{{flag|Panama}}
*{{flagcountry|Kingdom of Bulgaria}}
|
*{{flag|Belgium}}
*{{flagicon|Italy|1861}} [[Fascist Italy|Italy]]
*{{flag|Denmark}}
*{{flagcountry|Estado Novo (Portugal)}}
*{{flag|Norway}}
*{{flag|Sweden}}
*{{flag|Switzerland}}
|
*{{flagicon|Brazil|1889}} [[Vargas Era|Brazil]]
*{{flagicon|France|1794}} [[French Third Republic|France]]
*{{flag|United Kingdom}}
*{{flagcountry|Empire of Japan}}
*{{flag|Netherlands}}
*{{flag|United States|1912}}
*{{flag|Soviet Union|1936}}
|}

In 1929 the Nationalist government announced its goal of ending extraterritoriality completely.  Negotiations with Britain, the main holder of such rights, went slowly. They ended with the Japanese invasion of 1937 when Japan seized Shanghai and the main treaty ports where extraterritoriality was in operation.<ref>{{cite conference |first1=Clyde |last1=Eagleton |first2=Frederick S. |last2=Dunn |title=Responsibility for Damages to Persons and Property of Aliens in Undeclared War |conference=Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting |volume=32 |year=1938 |pages=127–146 |jstor=25656978}}</ref> When both countries declared war on Japan in late 1941, they became formal allies of China and made ending extraterritoriality an urgent goal which both the [[Treaty between the United States and China for the Relinquishment of Extraterritorial Rights in China|U.S.]] and [[Sino-British Treaty for the Relinquishment of Extra-Territorial Rights in China|Britain]] fulfilled with the treaties they signed with China in 1943.<ref>{{cite journal |first=K. C. |last=Chan<!--Possibly [[KC Chan]], who is just barely old enough to have published a paper in 1977 but history isn't his field--> |title=The Abrogation of British Extraterritoriality in China 1942–43: A Study of Anglo-American-Chinese Relations |journal=Modern Asian Studies |volume=11 |issue=2 |year=1977 |pages=257–291 |jstor=311551}}</ref>{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=179}}

===== Legacy =====

The legacy of this for jurisdictional control continues to the modern day. Cassel writes, "extraterritoriality has left many policy-makers in mainland China with a legacy of deeply felt suspicions toward international law, international organisations, and more recently, human rights".{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=182}} With part of its legitimacy resting on claims to strengthening national sovereignty and territorial integrity, the [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China]] explicitly states that foreigners must abide by [[Law of the People's Republic of China|PRC law]].{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=182}} And the [[Government of China|PRC government]] claims the right, under article 10 of its criminal code, to prosecute [[Chinese nationality law|Chinese citizens]] for crimes against the criminal code which are committed abroad, even if already punished for the crime.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=183}} These emerge from significant claims of the importance of national sovereignty, a reaction to its abridgement in the past, where almost no nations emphasise the importance of their sovereignty more than China does today.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=182}}

====Japan====
Japan recognized extraterritoriality in the treaties concluded with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, [[Netherlands]], and [[Russia]] in 1858, in connection with the concept of the "[[most favoured nation]]".<ref name="Duus">Duus, Peter (1998). ''Modern Japan'', Second Ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.</ref> Various commercial treaties extended extraterritorial protections in Japan with various parties, including with Peru, in 1873.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=157}} Most countries exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction through [[consular court]]s. Britain established the [[British Court for Japan]] in 1879.{{citation needed|date=August 2018}}

In 1887, only 2,389 non-Chinese foreigners lived in Japan, with strict limitations on [[freedom of movement]].{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=150}} These limitations meant that foreigners in Japan were not able to commit crime with impunity, in contrast with China, where foreigners were granted the ability to travel to the interior after passporting.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=150}} Rather, it was in the context of the Japanese state's desire to eliminate all competing jurisdictions and calls for legal reform based on the models of those jurisdictions that Japan's government desired to abolish foreign courts.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|pp=150–151}}

Having convinced the Western powers that its legal system was "sufficiently modern",{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=13}} Japan succeeded in reforming its unequal status with Britain through the 1894 [[Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation]], in which London would relinquish its Japanese extraterritorial rights within five years.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=160}} Similar treaties were signed with other extraterritorial powers around the same time. These treaties all came into effect in 1899, ending extraterritoriality in Japan.<ref>{{cite book |last= Jones|first= F.C.|year= 1931|title= Extraterritoriality in Japan|url= https://archive.org/stream/ExtraterritorialityInJapan/Jones-ExtraterritorialityInJapan#page/n82/mode/1up|publisher= [[Yale University Press]]|page= 158}}</ref>{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=160}}

After the Allied victory in 1945, the Mutual Security Assistance Pact, and its successor treaties, between the United States, to the modern day, grant US military personnel on American bases in [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]] extraterritorial privileges.{{sfn|Cassel|2012|p=183}}

====Siam====
King [[Mongkut]] (Rama IV) of Siam signed the [[Bowring Treaty]] granting extraterritorial rights to Britain in 1855. Sir [[Robert Hermann Schomburgk]], British Consul-General from 1859 to 1864, gives an account of his judicial training and responsibilities in a letter to his cousin dated 6 September 1860.<ref name="JSS_Guehler_Letter">{{cite journal | last = Guehler| first = Ulrich|year= 1949|title= A Letter Written by Sir Robert H. Schomburgk H.B.M.'s Consul in Bangkok in 1860|journal= [[Journal of the Siam Society]] |volume= 37.2f |issue= digital |pages= images 3–4 |no-pp= <!-- "image" hides automatic 'p' or 'pp'. -->|publisher= Siam Society |url= http://www.siamese-heritage.org/jsspdf/1941/JSS_037_2f_Guehler_LetterByRobertSchomburgk1860.pdf|access-date= 30 November 2013 |quote= ''Translation of a letter written in German by Sir Robert H. Schomburgk'' ... sheds a light on living conditions in Siam at the time, especially so on the life at the British Consulate.}}</ref> [[Unequal treaty|Unequal treaties]] were later signed with 12 other European powers and with Japan. Extraterritoriality came to end in 1917 with respect to the [[German Empire]] and [[Austria-Hungary]].{{citation needed|date=August 2018}}

In 1925{{endash}}1926, the treaties were revised to provide for consular jurisdiction to be terminated, and nationals of the parties to the treaty were to come under the jurisdiction of Thai courts after the introduction of all Thai legal codes and a period of 5 years thereafter.<ref>{{cite web|title = The Elimination of Extraterritoriality|url = http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/organize/1085/19297-The-Elimination-of-Extraterritoriality.html|publisher = Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand)|access-date = 25 January 2014}}</ref> By 1930, extraterritoriality was in effect no longer in force.<ref>Eric Lawson (former Commissioner of Police, Bangkok), "Extra-Territoriality as viewed by a police officer", ''The Police Journal'', 3:1, 1930</ref> After [[absolute monarchy]] was replaced by [[constitutional monarchy]] in the bloodless [[Siamese revolution of 1932]], the constitutional government promulgated a set of legal codes, setting the stage for new treaties signed in 1937{{endash}}1938 which canceled extraterritorial rights completely.<ref>{{cite web|title = Complete Independence|url = http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/organize/1085/19298-Complete-Independence.html|publisher = Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand)|access-date = 25 January 2014}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Elimination of extraterritoriality with respect to Siam
|- 
! style="width: 150px;" | Abolished in 1909 !! style="width: 150px;" | Abolished in 1917 !! style="width: 150px;" | Abolished in 1937–38
|- valign = "top"
|{{flag|United Kingdom}}
|{{flag|German Empire|name=Germany}}<br />{{flag|Austria-Hungary}}
|{{flag|Switzerland}}<br />{{flag|Belgium}}<br />{{flag|Luxembourg}}<br />{{flag|Denmark}}<br />{{flag|Sweden}}<br />{{flag|United States|1912}}<br />{{flag|Norway}}<br />{{flagicon|Italy|1861}} [[Fascist Italy|Italy]]<br />{{flagicon|France|1794}} [[French Third Republic|France]]<br />{{flagcountry|Empire of Japan}}<br />{{flag|Netherlands}}<br />{{flagcountry|Estado Novo (Portugal)}}
|}

== Current examples ==
Contrary to popular belief, [[diplomatic mission]]s do not generally enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.<ref>{{cite web|title=Laws and Rules Regarding Extraterritoriality|url=http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/miscellaneous/laws-and-rules-regarding-extraterritoriality/|website=Integrity Legal Blog|publisher=Integrity Legal|access-date=6 July 2016|date=14 July 2009}}</ref>

=== Countries ceding some control but not sovereignty ===
Countries which have ceded some control over their territory (for example, the right to enter at will for law enforcement purposes) without ceding sovereignty include:
* Extraterritorial [[properties of the Holy See]] in [[Italy]]
* Headquarters of the [[Sovereign Military Order of Malta]] in Rome
* [[Fort St. Angelo]] in Malta<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.orderofmalta.int/news/39146/after-two-centuries-the-order-of-malta-flag-flies-over-fort-st-angelo-beside-the-maltese-flag/?lang=en |title=After Two Centuries, The Order of Malta Flag Flies Over Fort St. Angelo, Beside The Maltese Flag |publisher=Sovereign Military Order of Malta |access-date=2015-07-19 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020195647/http://www.orderofmalta.int/news/39146/after-two-centuries-the-order-of-malta-flag-flies-over-fort-st-angelo-beside-the-maltese-flag/?lang=en |archive-date=20 October 2013}}</ref> (only partial)
* The headquarters of the [[European Commission]] in [[Brussels]], Belgium (as well as the building of the [[European Parliament]] there)
* The seat of the [[European Parliament]] in [[Strasbourg]], France
* [[United Nations headquarters]] in New York, United Nations offices in [[Palais des Nations|Geneva]], [[Vienna International Centre|Vienna]], [[Bonn]], [[Nairobi]], [[The Hague]] ([[International Court of Justice]]), [[Hamburg]] ([[International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea]]), [[Copenhagen]] and elsewhere.
* [[CERN]] (European Organization for Nuclear Research) – for convenience, some facilities that cross into France are under Swiss jurisdiction
* [[European Patent Office]] in [[Munich]], Berlin, and [[The Hague]]
* [[French national domain in the Holy Land]]
* [[International Maritime Organization]] Headquarters in London<ref name = UK_SI>{{cite  legislation UK |type=si |year=2002 |number=1826 |si = The International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002}}</ref>
* [[Juxtaposed controls]] for the Channel Tunnel. The United Kingdom has pre-boarding passport checks in France and Belgium, and France or Belgium operate passport checks in the UK.
* The [[Pays Quint]] is located on Spanish soil but rented by France since an 1856 treaty
* [[Saimaa Canal]] is partly located in Russia, but the Russian part is rented by Finland
* In [[Svalbard]], which is part of [[Norway]], other countries have the right to extract some natural resources and build establishments for this
* [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement]]
* [[Japan–Djibouti Status of Forces Agreement]]<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-01-29 |title=自衛隊派遣支える「地位協定」 ジブチの法令適用されず |url=https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO54942350Y0A120C2PP8000/ |access-date=2022-03-09 |website=日本経済新聞 |language=ja}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=志葉玲 |date=2019-03-06 |title=日本は、自衛隊が駐留するジブチに「占領軍」のような不平等協定を強いている |url=https://nikkan-spa.jp/1556286 |access-date=2022-03-09 |website=日刊SPA! |language=ja}}</ref>
* [[Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe]], the military headquarters of the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]], in [[Belgium]]
* [[Khmeimim Air Base]] in [[Syria]] is leased to the [[Russian Air Force]] for a period of 49 years, with the [[Russia|Russian Federation]] having extraterritorial jurisdiction over the air base and its personnel.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://docs.cntd.ru/document/420329053|title=Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Syrian Arab Republic on the deployment of an aviation group of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic (Russian)|website=docs.cntd.ru}}</ref><ref name="Vasiliev2018">{{cite book|author=Alexey Vasiliev|title=Russia's Middle East Policy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IRdSDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT511|date=19 March 2018|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-351-34886-7|pages=511–}}</ref>
* [[Tomb of Suleyman Shah]] of Turkey in Syria
* Various [[free port]]s exist outside the main [[customs territory]] of their host country.
* The national pavilions of the [[Venice Biennale]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ilgiornaledellarte.com/articoli/2013/9/117341.html|access-date=2020-09-16|website=www.ilgiornaledellarte.com|title=Il Giornale dell'Arte}}</ref>
* The Russian Federation maintains a lease until 2050 on the [[Baikonur Cosmodrome]] in Kazakhstan in the city of Baikonur

=== Transfers of ownership of land ===
Special concessions are sometimes made for cemeteries and memorials. National governments can also own property or special concessions in other host countries without gaining any sort of legal jurisdiction or sovereignty, in which case they are treated similarly to other private property owners. For example, ownership of land under the [[Runnymede#John F. Kennedy Memorial|John F. Kennedy Memorial]] at [[Runnymede]], England, was given to the United States by the United Kingdom, but required an [[Act of Parliament]] (the [[John F. Kennedy Memorial Act 1964]]) to do so, because the land was part of the [[Crown Estate]], which cannot otherwise be given away for free.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last = Evans | first = D. M. Emrys | title = John F. Kennedy Memorial Act, 1964
 | journal = The Modern Law Review | volume = 28 | issue = 6 | pages = 703–706
 | year = 1965 }} https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1964/jul/28/john-f-kennedy-memorial-bill</ref> Another example of these types of special concessions are the numerous cemeteries and monuments administered by the [[American Battle Monuments Commission]]. These are located in [[Belgium]], [[Cuba]], [[France]], [[Gibraltar]], [[Italy]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Mexico]], [[Morocco]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Panama]], [[Papua New Guinea]], the [[Philippines]], the [[Solomon Islands]], [[Tunisia]], and the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.abmc.gov/ | title = American Battle Monuments Commission | access-date = 13 March 2013}}</ref> The most popular site among these is the [[Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial]] in France. Land under the [[Canadian National Vimy Memorial]] and surrounding 100 hectares was gifted by France to Canada.

A similar case is the [[French domains of St Helena]]: the Government of France bought land property on St. Helena island to commemorate the exile of [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] there.

=== Internal cases ===
Internal cases (both parties are part of the same unitary sovereign state but have different border control and legal systems):
* [[Shenzhen Bay Port]] in [[Shenzhen]], [[Guangdong]] where an area in a port is leased by Shenzhen to the [[Hong Kong|Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]] and [[Law of Hong Kong|Hong Kong law]] applies. Although both jurisdictions, Shenzhen and Hong Kong, are in the same country, Hong Kong maintains a common law legal system different from the civil law system in [[Mainland China]]. Hong Kong law now applies in the port area.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/591/|title=Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance|website=www.hklii.hk}}</ref>
* Hengqin Campus of [[University of Macau]] in [[Zhuhai]], [[Guangdong]], administered by [[Macau|Macau SAR]] in a situation similar to above<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.um.edu.mo/campus/campus.html |title=University of Macau webpage |access-date=15 December 2020 |archive-date=15 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200815090030/https://www.um.edu.mo/campus/campus.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* Macau half of [[Hengqin Border Crossing]], adjacent to above<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.macaubusiness.com/new-hengqin-border-checkpoint-opens-for-public-use/| title = New Hengqin border checkpoint opens for public use {{!}} Macau Business| date = 18 August 2020}} </ref>

==Obligations==
{{Excerpt|Extraterritorial Obligations}}

==See also==
* [[Akmal Shaikh]]
* [[Antarctic Treaty System]]
* [[Basilica Major]]
* [[British Supreme Court for China and Japan]]
* [[British Court for Japan]]
* [[Demilitarized zone]]
* [[Diplomatic immunity]]
*[[Embassy church]]
* [[Enclave and exclave]]
* [[EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg]]
* [[Extraterritorial jurisdiction]]
* [[Extraterritorial operation]]
* [[Harris Treaty]]
* [[Western imperialism in Asia|Imperialism in Asia]]
* [[International waters]]
* [[International zone]]
* [[Law of the Sea]]
* [[Moon Treaty]]
* [[Neutral territory]]
* [[Outer Space Treaty]]
* [[Prerogative]]
* ''[[Rasul v. Bush]]''
* [[Status of forces agreement]]
* [[Terra nullius]]
* [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement]]
* [[Headquarters of the United Nations|United Nations Headquarters]]
* [[List of territories governed by the United Nations]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
* Bickers, Robert, and Isabella Jackson, eds. ''Treaty Ports in Modern China: Law, Land and Power'' (Routledge, 2016).
* {{Cite book|title=Grounds of Judgment|last=Cassel|first=Pär|publisher=Oxford UP|year=2012|isbn=978-0-19-979205-4|location=New York}}
* Chan, K. Chan. "The Abrogation of British Extraterritoriality in China 1942-43: A Study of Anglo-American-Chinese Relations." ''Modern Asian Studies'' 11.2 (1977): 257-291 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/311551 online].
* {{cite book |last= Clark|first= Douglas|date= 2015|title= Gunboat Justice: British and American Law Courts in China and Japan (1842-1943)|location= Hong Kong|publisher= [[Earnshaw Books]]}}, Vol. 1: {{ISBN|978-988-82730-8-9}}; Vol. 2: {{ISBN|978-988-82730-9-6}}; Vol. 3: {{ISBN|978-988-82731-9-5}}
* Davids, Jules, and Jonathan M. Nielson. "Extraterritoriality." in ''Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy'' ed. by Alexander DeConde et al. (2002) 2:81–92.
* “Developments in the Law: Extraterritoriality.” ''Harvard Law Review'', vol. 124, no. 5, 2011, pp.&nbsp;1226–1304. [https://JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25800158 online]
* Fenwick, C. G. "The Nine Power Treaty and the Present Crisis in China." ''American Journal of International Law'' 31.4 (1937): 671-674. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2190677 online]
* Kayaoglu, Turan. ''Legal imperialism: sovereignty and extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China'' (Cambridge UP, 2010).
* Keeton, George W. ''The development of extraterritoriality in China'' (2 vol 1928). comprehensive on China and briefer coverage across the world in vol 2 pp 155–172. [https://archive.org/details/volume1developme00keet_0/page/n7/mode/2up vol 2 online]
* Liu, Shih Shun. ''Extraterritoriality, Its Rise and Its Decline'' (1925) [http://www.panarchy.org/shihshunliu/presentation.1925.html online]; comprehensive scholarly history in global history perspective.
* Scully, Eileen P. "Historical Wrongs and Human Rights in Sino-Foreign Relations: The Legacy of Extraterritoriality." ''Journal of American-East Asian Relations'' 9.1-2 (2000): 129-146.
* Thomson, Janice E. ''Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe'' (Princeton UP, 1994) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7t30p online]

==External links==
{{NIE Poster}}
{{EB1911 poster|Exterritoriality}}

* [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00104140221115169 The Extraterritorial Voting Rights and Restrictions Dataset (1950–2020)]
* [[Columbia Encyclopedia]]—[https://web.archive.org/web/20060211165833/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ex/extrater.html "Extraterritoriality"]
* [https://books.google.com/books?id=TKImAAAAMAAJ&q=%22extraterritoriality+commission%22 Report of the Extraterritoriality Commission in China (1926)]
* {{cite book |last= Frelinghuysen|first= Frederick T.|author-link= Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen|date= 29 April 1882|title= Extraterritoriality: A Letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations concerning the judicial exercise of extraterritorial rights conferred upon the United States|url= https://archive.org/details/extraterritoria00frelgoog|location= Washington, DC|publisher= [[United States Government Publishing Office|Government Printing Office]]}}
* [http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf Law Ministry of India] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052600/http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1942.pdf |date=4 March 2016 }}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:International law]]
[[Category:Extraterritorial jurisdiction]]