[Benny_Cake]

Originally Posted by recedite

Yes, but in their capacity as the government of the Vatican States during that time.

Not so - there was a period of time from 1870 until 1929 when the Pope was sovereign over no territory whatsoever (the Prisoner in the Vatican), and ambassadors continued to be accredited to the Holy See.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by PDN

So, just to clarify, are you saying that Ireland has never had an ambassador to the Vatican State, but only to the organisation of the RCC known as the Holy See? Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes. And not just Ireland; this is true of all countries which exchange ambasssadors with the papacy.

The Vatican City State and the Holy See are distinct entities. The Vatican City State was created in 1929 and is of very little international signficance, except to Italy. The Holy See has been around for centuries, and it is the politically and diplomatically signficant player.

Confusion arises because in legal/diplomatic circles the Holy See is often called the Vatican, just as the British Government gets called Westminster or the American presidency gets called the White House (as in "the White House announced that . . .").

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

Yes, but in their capacity as the government of the Vatican States during that time.

Not at all. They controlled no territory at all from 1870 to 1929, yet continued exchanging ambassadors, signing treaties, etc. Prior to 1870 they controlled varying amounts of territory in central Italy, but if you think that their diplomatic and political significance ever came from the territory they controlled, you’re not thinking straight.

Originally Posted by recedite

Yes, because Garibaldi had earlier seized the Vatican States during the creation of the new unified state called Italy. The Holy See then faced a loss of diplomatic credibility for a few years until Mussolini gave them back a token amount of territory in return for their support of his fascist regime.

I don’t think the Holy See lost much diplomatic credibility after 1870, or gained much after 1929. Why would they?

San Marino, also an Italian enclave, has several times more territory than the Vatican City State, and a much larger population. Unlike the Vatican, it has an actual economy, albeit a small one, and it even generates a modest amount of consular activity. But how much diplomatic credibility does that give it? It hosts resident embassies from just one country (Italy, predictably) and two non-state sovereigns (the Holy See, and the Order of Malta). The Holy See, by contrast, hosts 69 resident embassies. Whatever accounts for this proliferation of diplomatic representation, it is certainly not the territory of the Vatican City State.

Originally Posted by recedite

Here's a practical example of why they wanted a token territory. If President Obama comes here on a state visit, we pay the costs. If the Pope comes here on a (vatican) state visit we pay the costs. If the head of any other religion comes here on an official visit, they pay their own costs.

But that’s got nothing to do with the Vatican City State. The Holy See is an internationally-recognised sovereign entity, and was for centuries before the SCV was established. As such its head – the pope – gets treated like other sovereigns, including not only ambassadors, treaties, etc, but also the occasional invitation for a state visit. But he doesn’t need a token territory to get this treatment, as evidenced by the fact that he was getting sovereign treatment at a time when the Holy See had no territory at all.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Yes. And not just Ireland; this is true of all countries which exchange ambasssadors with the papacy.

The Vatican City State and the Holy See are distinct entities. The Vatican City State was created in 1929 and is of very little international signficance, except to Italy. The Holy See has been around for centuries, and it is the politically and diplomatically signficant player.

Confusion arises because in legal/diplomatic circles the Holy See is often called the Vatican, just as the British Government gets called Westminster or the American presidency gets called the White House (as in "the White House announced that . . .").

So, rather than comparing the Vatican embassy with embassies to nations, it would be more accurate to compare it to hypothetical embassies to Canterbury (Anglican communion), Brooklyn (Jehovah's Witnesses), Springfield, Missouri (Assemblies of God), Salt Lake City (Mormons), Geneva (Lutherans) etc. Yes?

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by PDN

So, rather than comparing the Vatican embassy with embassies to nations, it would be more accurate to compare it to hypothetical embassies to Canterbury (Anglican communion), Brooklyn (Jehovah's Witnesses), Springfield, Missouri (Assemblies of God), Salt Lake City (Mormons), Geneva (Lutherans) etc. Yes?

No. None of these bodies are internationally recognised sovereign entities. If you have a preference for real-world comparisons - and I do myself - the appropriate comparison would be to embassies to international and supranational sovereign organisations - the UN, the OECD, the International Committe of the Red Cross, the Order of Malta, and such.

It's true that none of these organisations, the Holy See excepted, is the central organisation of a religious denomination (though the Knights of Malta are a religious order). But there is no reason why we should have an arbitrary rule that says that particular kinds of organisations cannot be internationally recognised as sovereign. States are politely but firmly pragmatic about these things; if the organisation is signficant enough as a presence on the world stage, and it if is in their own interests to recognise it and establish diplomatic relations with it, then they will do that. The reasons why the central organisation of the Catholic church got this treatment when the central organisations of other denomonations didn't are historical, linked I think to the collapse of the Empire in the West. But governments aren't interested in history; countries which recognise the Holy See, and countries which establish diplomatic relations with it are motivated by their own current interests. (As are countries which close their resident embassies.)

[Manach]

Historically, States for their own interests grant recognition or withhold it. For instance post WWII, the US continued to recognise the Baltic states that were annexed by the USSR and in the case of Taiwan, most countries because of politic pressure form China withhold recognition.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

I don’t think the Holy See lost much diplomatic credibility after 1870, or gained much after 1929. Why would they?

They lost their territory and their subjects who had been living in that territory. So they were effectively a government in exile, with the only population being the members of the government itself. Such a situation is not sustainable; sooner or later the government has to admit it has lost sovereignty. Sovereignty is linked to territory.

"Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. The Holy See was in this position between the annexation in 1870 of the Papal States by Italy and the signing of the Lateran Treaties in 1929, when it was recognised as sovereign by many (mostly Roman Catholic) states despite possessing no territory – a situation resolved when the Lateran Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the Vatican City."
source

San Marino has a tiny territory and minimal power. The Holy See has a tiny territory and considerable power. Other religious bodies may have power but are not sovereign over any particular territory or population.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

- the appropriate comparison would be to embassies to international and supranational sovereign organisations - the UN, the OECD, the International Committe of the Red Cross, the Order of Malta, and such.

The Order of Malta has a token territory in Rome, like the Holy See has. The Red Cross is not really sovereign, Switzerland does not officially recognise them as being sovereign, nor their passports. I accept your point though that pragmatism comes into it, and the UN can have ambassadors without having a permanent territory, although it does govern war-torn areas temporarily, where it becomes the sovereign power.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

They lost their territory and their subjects who had been living in that territory. So they were effectively a government in exile, with the only population being the members of the government itself. Such a situation is not sustainable; sooner or later the government has to admit it has lost sovereignty. Sovereignty is linked to territory.

Sovereignty is normally linked to territory, but not exclusively so, because you do have non-territorial sovereigns. Any entity that exchanges ambassadors, signs internationally recognized treaties, issues passports (and has them internationally recognized) and participates in diplomatic fora on an equal basis with other sovereigns is a sovereign. The UN is a sovereign, for example, though it controls no territory. The EU is a sovereign, although it has no sovereign territory. (All the territory of the EU is the sovereign territory of the various members states, not of the Union.) Conversely, an entity which controls territory but does none of these things is not a sovereign.

Essentially, what constitutes sovereignty is recognition as a sovereign by other sovereigns. Normally, you get this recognition because of the territory you control, but that’s not essential.

In the case of the Vatican City State, it was pretty much the other way around. It was already recognized as sovereign, and it was given a token territory because that was seen as an appropriate way to mark its sovereign independence of Italy.

Originally Posted by recedite

San Marino has a tiny territory and minimal power. The Holy See has a tiny territory and considerable power.

Exactly. And the decision to have - or not to have - a resident embassy to the Holy See will be based on a state’s assessment of the Holy See’s power (influence might be a better word), not the state’s assessment of the Holy See’s territory. Which is why pointing out the the Holy See controls a territory of only 110 acres is not really much of an argument for not having an embassy there.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by recedite

The Order of Malta has a token territory in Rome, like the Holy See has.

The Villa of the Grand Master does enjoy certain privileges under Italian law, but neither Italy nor any other state regards it as "sovereign territory". (If they did, people would have to stop saying that the Vatican City State is the world's smallest state, since the Grand Master's Villa is smaller.)

[recedite]

You think its a joke to call the Grand Masters Villa a sovereign State. I think its a joke to call the Vatican a sovereign State. As you say, it's a confidence trick; it all depends on who is prepared to recognise your sovereignty and how important they are. When the Holy See was deprived of all territory, they were only recognised by a few, mostly Catholic, countries, until they regained the Vatican.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by PDN

So, rather than comparing the Vatican embassy with embassies to nations, it would be more accurate to compare it to hypothetical embassies to Canterbury (Anglican communion), Brooklyn (Jehovah's Witnesses), Springfield, Missouri (Assemblies of God), Salt Lake City (Mormons), Geneva (Lutherans) etc. Yes?

why not? - If accepted by the UN of which currently the holy see and Palestine are the only non member states.

Other entities having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and maintaining permanent offices at Headquarters of which ther are four
Red cross and crescent
interparliamentary Union
Order of Malta

Of course the JWs teach that the United Nations is the "image of the wild beast" referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the fulfillment of the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15. so why would they want an embassy?

The Anglicans could probably get one and the Lutherans as part of them. but That would involve decoupling the British head of state from either the UK or the Church if England.
Also given Norway and other countries have Lutheran associations the same problems might exist for their states.

[recedite]

AFAIK the British Head of State still cannot be RC, this going back to the legalistic idea that the loyalty of catholics would be divided between the monarch and the pope. Presumably the same legalistic concept allowed for the penal laws to be introduced here. Perhaps if the pope had stayed out of politics and sovereign affairs, things would have been easier for catholics in these islands.

[Manach]

Academically speaking AFAIR
1/ The English prior to the reformation used fairly robust social/legal means to deal with the native Irish.
2/ Post-reformation: Mary I, a Catholic, still went ahead with various plantation schemes which evicted the Irish form the land. James II tried to rollback some disadvantages - leading to his overthrow.
Without the Church abroad raising the concerns about Irish Catholics and lending support, the repeal penal laws would have been more difficult.

Ironically, given the human rights violations that the Chinese state had and has inflicted on lay/cleric Catholics - our Foreign minister has greeted their VP so warmly.

[Festus]

Originally Posted by recedite

AFAIK the British Head of State still cannot be RC, this going back to the legalistic idea that the loyalty of catholics would be divided between the monarch and the pope. Presumably the same legalistic concept allowed for the penal laws to be introduced here. Perhaps if the pope had stayed out of politics and sovereign affairs, things would have been easier for catholics in these islands.

have you tried reading a history book?

Just curious...