Vatican City

Kiwi in IE

I find it absurd that an 0.5 square km area inside Rome is considered a 'soveriegn state'. How can an area that size, with a population of 500 odd people, be a sovereign state? It should barely qualify as a suburb due to size and population. I'm sure there are apartment buildings that have a larger population. It is a small area within a large city in Italy, not a country. It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State. Secular coutries should refuse to recognise it.

pauldla

Well, this article an about.com puts forward these reasons why the Vatican can be considered a State.

In summary, the Vatican

1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries.
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

So, tiny as it may be, by the criteria above it qualifies.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/vaticancountry.htm

robindch

I haven't read the book, but I believe that Geoffrey Robertson's 2010 book, The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, suggests that the Vatican's claim to statehood is, at best, dubious:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Pope-Vatican-Accountability-Rights/dp/0241953847

http://www.ejiltalk.org/geoffrey-robertson-responds-on-the-statehood-of-the-vatican/

jank

Whatever your opinion about whether it should be a state or not, the fact of the matter it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

Should Andora not be a state so? Or Lichtenstein? What would you constitute a nation state and under what parameters?
Anyway the true question is why does it bother you. It bothers me as much as Monaco.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I haven't read the book, but I believe that Geoffrey Robertson's 2010 book, The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, suggests that the Vatican's claim to statehood is, at best, dubious:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Pope-Vatican-Accountability-Rights/dp/0241953847

http://www.ejiltalk.org/geoffrey-robertson-responds-on-the-statehood-of-the-vatican/

Well with a title like that I wouldn't say its written from a pure non biased historical perspective.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

Well with a title like that I wouldn't say its written from a pure non biased historical perspective.

It's written from a legal perspective.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's written from a legal perspective.

It's a fantastic book, too, and one that should be required reading for all R.R.C. apologetics; I "forced" a few friends and family members, who were somewhat sympathetic to the R.C.C. and the Vatican, to read it, and it changed their minds completely. There are few books that put forward an argument as clearly, concisely and cogently as Robertson's book manages to do.

As for the query in the O.P., the landmass or population size of a state has little to do with the legitimacy of its sovereignty. There are numerous other aspects of the Vatican's statehood, which are put forward in Robertson's book, as Robin points out, that can be used to form a better argument against the Vatican's sovereignty than its population size and geographical area.

Mark Hamill

pauldla wrote: »

Well, this article an about.com puts forward these reasons why the Vatican can be considered a State.

In summary, the Vatican

1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries.
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

So, tiny as it may be, by the criteria above it qualifies.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/vaticancountry.htm

Ikea has 1 to 6.
7 and 8 are tautologies, arent they? You need them to be considered a state, but you wont get them until you are considered a sovereign state.

SPQRI

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I find it absurd that an 0.5 square km area inside Rome is considered a 'soveriegn state'. How can an area that size, with a population of 500 odd people, be a sovereign state? It should barely qualify as a suburb due to size and population. I'm sure there are apartment buildings that have a larger population. It is a small area within a large city in Italy, not a country. It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State. Secular coutries should refuse to recognise it.

I find it incredulous that a country that's on the other side of the planet should prostitute the flag of another county on its own!

But who really give a fcuk!!!

Feathers

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I find it absurd that an 0.5 square km area inside Rome is considered a 'soveriegn state'. How can an area that size, with a population of 500 odd people, be a sovereign state? It should barely qualify as a suburb due to size and population. I'm sure there are apartment buildings that have a larger population. It is a small area within a large city in Italy, not a country. It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State. Secular coutries should refuse to recognise it.

why secular countries in particular?

Surely that's the same logic (though changing the numbers) of saying countries shouldn't recognise Ireland as a soveirgn state?

I mean half of the US federal states have a bigger population. 3 quarters of Indian states have a bigger population — why should they recognise a place that's only as big as one of their smaller counties to be have its own soveirgnty?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Anyway the true question is why does it bother you.

Because there are serious issues related to the covering-up of child abuse for which Ratzinger and various friends are using the Vatican's unconvincing diplomatic immunity to hide behind.

jank wrote: »

Well with a title like that I wouldn't say its written from a pure non biased historical perspective.

I don't immediately see why a book title should be misleading, false or fail to have some connection what's inside. Do you?

jank

robindch wrote: »

Because there are serious issues related to the covering-up of child abuse for which Ratzinger and various friends are using the Vatican's unconvincing diplomatic immunity to hide behind.I don't immediately see why a book title should be misleading, false or fail to have some connection what's inside. Do you?

Elaborate?

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

Elaborate?

You could read the book that was suggested in the first couple of posts. It is actually a very good read. I have not read it for a while, but off the top of my head here are a couple of points:

- total dependency of Italy. Water, sewage, power etc all come from Italy.
- no actual police or non-fantasy based law. If you mug someone in Vatican City you will be take to an Italian police station and tried in an Italian court.
- most of the office and apartments that house the staff of the Holy See are actually in Rome, not Vatican City.
- by sticking their nose into politics, as they are wont to do, they are actually breaching one of the terms of the Lateran treaty. This treaty is the one that gives the land which they base their claim to statehood on.

There are plenty of others, but I have not read the book for sometime.

I really would recommend it though.

MrP

Peregrinus

I think the whole business of the Vatican, it’s tiny territory, it’s negligible population, etc, is a bit of a red herring in this context.

The Vatican City State was created in 1929 by the Lateran Treaty. But the Holy See has existed, and has been exchanging ambassadors, signing treaties, etc, for centuries. (In fact, the Lateran Treaty was a treaty between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See, which neatly illustrates the point that the Holy See was a player before the Vatican City State existed.) The Vatican and the Holy See are two distinct entities.

The Vatican, as a state, is a place of almost no significance, except to Italy. It takes part in no international organisations, it attends no conferences, it sends and receives no ambassadors and it has bilateral relations with only one country - Italy. And those have to do with mundane things like sewage, and policing St. Peter’s Square.

The Holy See is the significant international player. Over time it has controlled varying amounts of territory - sometimes none at all - but its international and diplomatic significance has never really depended on the territory it controlled.

It’s not helpful to think of the Holy See as a state. It’s an organisation whose core activity is presiding over, and representing at the international level, the religious movement commonly called the Catholic church. Recognising the Holy See on the diplomatic level is a bit like recognising the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the Order of Malta, or the OECD, or the EU, or the UN, or a host of other international organisations which enter into relationships with governments, send and receive ambassadors and are generally players of some significance on the diplomatic scene.

You can certainly debate whether the Holy See should operate at this level or whether states should recognise it or accept its doing so. But the territory, population, sewage arrangements, etc of the Vatican City State are not really relevant considerations in that debate.

I confess I haven’t read Robertson’s book, and my List Of Books I Mean To Read Some Day is already longer than is credible, so I’m reluctant to add to it. If he’s banging on about where the Vatican gets its water from then I’m not really interested, because I think he’s missing the point.

But I am interested in the claim that “there are serious issues related to the covering-up of child abuse for which Ratzinger and various friends are using the Vatican's unconvincing diplomatic immunity to hide behind”. Can anyone tell me does Robertson deal in any detail with this, i.e. the claim that the church is using diplomatic status to cover up child abuse?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I confess I haven’t read Robertson’s book, and my List Of Books I Mean To Read Some Day is already longer than is credible, so I’m reluctant to add to it. If he’s banging on about where the Vatican gets its water from then I’m not really interested, because I think he’s missing the point.

That is a very small part of the book. Please do not let my faulty recollection from 2 years ago put you off. It is a very good read. Additionally, it is quite a small book, and a very quick read. I read it in little more than an evening.

He does mention the diplomatic aspect of it. In fact, it is mention in relation to one of the Irish clerical abuse investigations. The judge in that investigation, Ryan I think, specifically mentioned how the Vatican / Holy See refused to deal with them. In fact, the Holy See apparently complained to the Irish government and said that any RFIs had to come by diplomatic channels, and were then ignored.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

He does mention the diplomatic aspect of it. In fact, it is mention in relation to one of the Irish clerical abuse investigations. The judge in that investigation, Ryan I think, specifically mentioned how the Vatican / Holy See refused to deal with them. In fact, the Holy See apparently complained to the Irish government and said that any RFIs had to come by diplomatic channels, and were then ignored.

I don't see that there would have been a different outcome if diplomatic recognition had been withdrawn, though, or had never been accorded in the first place. In other words, this isn't an example of the Vatican authorities using their diplomatic status to avoid doing something they could otherwise have been compelled to do.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that there would have been a different outcome if diplomatic recognition had been withdrawn, though, or had never been accorded in the first place. In other words, this isn't an example of the Vatican authorities using their diplomatic status to avoid doing something they could otherwise have been compelled to do.

You sure? Consider this:

Imagine there was a massive child abuse scandal in the Hot Dog King (HDK) fast food chain. I came to light that a significant minority of the employees of that company abused children during birthday parties. There was credible evidence that the branch and area managers were aware of the abuse, but rather than report it to the authorities they moved the abusers to other branches in other areas, and in severe cases sent them on sensitivity training courses or extended leave.

As investigations continued it became clear that the head office in the US was highly likely to have been aware of the abuse, and, in fact, appeared to have procedures in place for dealing these allegations, though the procedures did not seem to include contacting the local authorities. It now turns out that similar behaviour has been seen in every country where the fast food chain operates.

Due to the massive number of allegations in Ireland the government launched an enquiry. As part of the investigation the enquiry team asked for any documentation relating to internal reports of abuse and communications between area managers and head office in the states. Here they ran into a problem. Some year previously the GOP had been in some trouble politically. In order to win an election they enlisted the help of HDK to mobilise there staff and customers to vote GOP. This was successful and in return for the help the GOP gave HDK an area of land to set up their headquarters. This land is considered to be a separate state and HDK is treated like a sovereign state.

HDK ignore the request for information from the enquiry. Further, they complain to the Irish government about being contacted directly and demand that any further questions be directed through diplomatic channels. It is also pointed out that because HDK is, in effect, a state in its own rights the communications between area managers and head office are covered by diplomatic privilege. They are, therefore, under no obligation to provide them to the enquiry on request, nor can they be legally compelled to do so.

The enquiry has to proceed without the assistance of the organisation that is responsible for the crimes it is investigating.

Do you think that is acceptable?

It seems to me that, were the diplomatic angle not present, the church could have been compelled to participate more fully in the investigations into it behaviour. Granted, it would also require some balls on the part of the government, but that is what is needed. The church should be treated like any other company when it comes to criminal investigations. Sham statehood is not, or should not be, a sufficient excuse for refusing to assist in an investigation into your organisations own illegal behaviour.

MrP

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Whatever your opinion about whether it should be a state or not, the fact of the matter it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

Should Andora not be a state so? Or Lichtenstein? What would you constitute a nation state and under what parameters?
Anyway the true question is why does it bother you. It bothers me as much as Monaco.

Does Monaco hide child rapists? Does it interfere in the lives of people WORLDWIDE?

MrPudding

joseph brand wrote: »

Does Monaco hide child rapists? Does it interfere in the lives of people WORLDWIDE?

The bit that irritates me, sorry, one of the bits that irritates me a little bit more than everything else irritates me is this scummy organisation actually breaches the treaty that they claim gives them statehood:

Lateran Treaty, Article 24 wrote:

In regard to the sovereignty appertaining to it also in international matters, the Holy See declares that it desires to take, and shall take, no part in any temporal rivalries between other States, nor in any international congresses called to settle such matters, save and except in the event of such parties making a mutual appeal to the pacific mission of the Holy See, the latter reserving in any event the right of exercising its moral and spiritual power.

MrP

PopePalpatine

joseph brand wrote: »

Does Monaco hide child rapists? Does it interfere in the lives of people WORLDWIDE?

Also, does the Vatican have a Grand Prix? :pac:

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

You sure? Consider this . . .

. . . As part of the investigation the enquiry team asked for any documentation relating to internal reports of abuse and communications between area managers and head office in the states. Here they ran into a problem. Some year previously the GOP had been in some trouble politically. In order to win an election they enlisted the help of HDK to mobilise there staff and customers to vote GOP. This was successful and in return for the help the GOP gave HDK an area of land to set up their headquarters. This land is considered to be a separate state and HDK is treated like a sovereign state.

HDK ignore the request for information from the enquiry. Further, they complain to the Irish government about being contacted directly and demand that any further questions be directed through diplomatic channels. It is also pointed out that because HDK is, in effect, a state in its own rights the communications between area managers and head office are covered by diplomatic privilege. They are, therefore, under no obligation to provide them to the enquiry on request, nor can they be legally compelled to do so.

The enquiry has to proceed without the assistance of the organisation that is responsible for the crimes it is investigating.

Do you think that is acceptable?

The example is a bit fanciful, but it still doesn’t make your point. Even if HDK was not a “a state in its own right”, they would still have been “under no obligation” to hand over what was sought, and they could not have been “legally compelled” to do so. In your example the HDK authorities, if they were not in the sovereign territory of HDK, would be in the sovereign territory of the USA, and the outcome would be exactly the same. If you’re outside Irish jurisdiction, you’re outside Irish jurisdiction; it makes no difference whether you claim to be a sovereign state, or an entity within some other sovereign state. Consequently, even if the church authorities in Rome enjoyed no kind of international or diplomatic recognition, they could (and no doubt would) still have ignored the tribunal’s requests, because they’re in Rome, not in Dublin. And that would have been perfectly legal.

The Vatican’s ability to thumb it’s nose at the tribunal, therefore, did not depend to any extent on any sovereign status; it depended simply on the fact that the Vatican is not in Ireland.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not defending the Vatican’s stance on this, and I’m not unsympathetic to gestures which illustrate our anger and revulsion. But we need to be honest that that’s what our measures are; gestures. If we think that by withdrawing recognition from the Vatican we would thereby exert any kind of greater control over it, or limit its independent action in any way, we’re simply delusional. And delusion is not a good basis for public policy.

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Also, does the Vatican have a Grand Prix? :pac:

Depends on whether the 'Prix' is pronounced as in English or French.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

The example is a bit fanciful, but it still doesn’t make your point. Even if HDK was not a “a state in its own right”, they would still have been “under no obligation” to hand over what was sought, and they could not have been “legally compelled” to do so.

Are you sure? Multinationals are "compelled" to do things they don't want to all the time. Sometimes it is by statutory provision and sometimes he pressure is more subtle.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In your example the HDK authorities, if they were not in the sovereign territory of HDK, would be in the sovereign territory of the USA, and the outcome would be exactly the same. If you’re outside Irish jurisdiction, you’re outside Irish jurisdiction; it makes no difference whether you claim to be a sovereign state, or an entity within some other sovereign state.

I don't think this is quite true. We have criminal investigations involving various sovereign states all the time. This is not uncommon. In addition, domestics laws can extend to activity which takes place in other jurisdictions.

Pressure on companies to comply with investigations, for whatever purpose, does not have to legal. Companies enjoy a wide range of privileges which allow them to operate relatively hassle free and profitably. Threats to take a closer look at the goings on or increased oversight can have great effect.

Aside from that, there are legal mechanisms to hold parent companies liable for actions of subsidiary companies. Whether or not the church could be compelled to co-operate in an investigation (quite why a supposed guardian of morality would need to be compelled to co-operate in the investigation of child rape perpetrated by is own employees is, I must admit, something that boggles my mind) falls into a similar category as the property transfers used to divest the various diocese of assets so they could plead poverty and avoid paying compensation. They could, if the will was there, be quite easily defeated.

Similarly, if governments decided that enough was enough, any excuse the vatican used to avoid co-operating with investigations with its employees, diplomatic or not, could likely be dealt with.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Consequently, even if the church authorities in Rome enjoyed no kind of international or diplomatic recognition, they could (and no doubt would) still have ignored the tribunal’s requests, because they’re in Rome, not in Dublin. And that would have been perfectly legal.

The Vatican’s ability to thumb it’s nose at the tribunal, therefore, did not depend to any extent on any sovereign status; it depended simply on the fact that the Vatican is not in Ireland.

Again, I am not convinced. If the church was compared to a multinational then this is not so clear. Recent cases would indicate that parent companies can be found liable for the act of subsidiaries. During litigation documentation and records from parent companies are used in evidence. And again, if the will was there, it could be done.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not defending the Vatican’s stance on this, and I’m not unsympathetic to gestures which illustrate our anger and revulsion. But we need to be honest that that’s what our measures are; gestures. If we think that by withdrawing recognition from the Vatican we would thereby exert any kind of greater control over it, or limit its independent action in any way, we’re simply delusional. And delusion is not a good basis for public policy.

I don't agree. Whilst the accountability that multinational companies are held to leaves a lot to desire, it is considerably greater than that which the vatican or holy see is held to.

But for the diplomatic status the vatican could be treated like any other multinational company or organisation. Without the diplomatic status criminal investigations would be easier. I can't find a reference right now, but i have a strong recollection that evidence was withheld in a criminal investigation on the basis that the material being requested had diplomatic status.

And yes, you are probably correct to say a lot of this is tilting at windmills, but if enough people do it someone might listen.

Have a look at this:

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=40036&kb_header_id=47307

Quite interesting. The article referenced at 37 is pretty good.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you sure? Multinationals are "compelled" to do things they don't want to all the time. Sometimes it is by statutory provision and sometimes he pressure is more subtle.

Irish laws, and Irish court orders, and the directions of Irish tribunals, etc, do not affect companies (or individuals) not based in Ireland. There are exceptions to this; there are EU arrangements for arrest warrants, for example, and for the enforcement of civil judgments, but none of them would be relevant here.

To continue your HDK example, the most effective way to put pressure on the parent company would be to threaten its financial interests in Ireland – change the tax treatment of licensing of its Irish operating subsidiary, for example. If this would hit the bottom line of HDK more than disclosing the information sought from the parent company, HDK would at least consider disclosing the information.

There are, of course, reasons why an Irish government would hesitate to do this, mostly to do with the adverse impression it would create of Irland as a location for international investment, or as a country enjoying political and legal stability. But leave that aside; the point here is that Ireland could try to create a situation in which it was in HDK’s interests to disclose the information sought, but we couldn’t create a situation in which we could impose a legal obligation on the non-Irish-based parent company. After all, if we can’t create a legal obligation enforceable in the notionally sovereign state of HDKland, doesn’t it follow that we also can’t create a legal obligation enforceable in the very really sovereign USA?

The bottom line is that Ireland cannot create legal obligations enforceable in the Apostolic Palace in Rome. The reason for this does not depend on whether the Apostolic Palace is in the territory of the Vatican City State or of the Italian Republic; it’s enough that it is not in the territory of Ireland.

What we could do, as we would in the HDK casd, is to threaten the Vatican’s interests in Ireland – the tax treatment of the Catholic church, the role of the Catholic church in education, etc. Again, there are serious questions about whether we ought to do this, or at any rate whether we ought to do this for this reason, but in principle we could do it. But we can do it now; our ability to do this does not in any way depend on whether we recognise the Vatican City State or the Holy See at the diplomatic level.

MrPudding wrote: »

Have a look at this:

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=40036&kb_header_id=47307

Quite interesting. The article referenced at 37 is pretty good.

It is interesting. And disgusting. But, again, unless I’ve overlooking something I don’t see that the diplomatic recognition of the Holy See is a factor here.

Mark Hamill

If the Vatican insists on hiding behind some sort of imagined statehood, could we not just declare war on them?
They have trained agents in countries across the world, who attempt to manipulate governments to maximise their own power and who have a documented history of abuse of children everywhere they go.
Leaked documents have shown that the organization has guidelines to baffle police investigations into the abuse, so who's to say that the abuse is not one of their aims of the organisation? A lack of cooperation means we cannot say if these guidelines were made in answer to the abuses or before the abuses begin, in order to maximise their damage.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

there are EU arrangements for arrest warrants, for example, and for the enforcement of civil judgments, but none of them would be relevant here....

Why do you say they are not relevant? If Irish govt. or Gardai contacted their opposite numbers in Italy (as opposed to the Vatican/Holy See) in relation to alleged crimes, a fully co-operative response would be required. Compare to the Sophie du Plantier case where investigators travelled between Ireland and France, witnesses were compelled to give evidence, with full disclosure of documents to the French. Generally in the EU the suspect is required to be extradited to the country where the alleged crime took place, and if the evidence is only available abroad, the other police force will gather it and send it on, or else they invite an investigating team to travel for the purposes of collecting it.

Secondly there is some additional diplomatic immunity for a "Head of State" which Ratzinger could personally claim in a worst case scenario.

And then there's the fact that when you can manipulate the laws of the sovereign state you reside in, you and your buddies are never going to fall foul of those laws. Berlusconi was a mere amateur at that game.

endacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is as ridiculous a concept as Temple Bar declaring itself an Independent State.

May be off-topic, but wouldn't this be a good thing? With strict border controls? We could let people in, and let nobody out. Would solve both the Temple bar problem and the people-who-frequent-Temple-Bar problem?

Just a thought...

endacl

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Also, does the Vatican have a Grand Prix? :pac:

Yes. His name is Benedict. Grand Prix = Big Prick, non? Qu-est que c'est? Oui? Non?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Why do you say they are not relevant? If Irish govt. or Gardai contacted their opposite numbers in Italy (as opposed to the Vatican/Holy See) in relation to alleged crimes, a fully co-operative response would be required. Compare to the Sophie du Plantier case where investigators travelled between Ireland and France, witnesses were compelled to give evidence, with full disclosure of documents to the French. Generally in the EU the suspect is required to be extradited to the country where the alleged crime took place, and if the evidence is only available abroad, the other police force will gather it and send it on, or else they invite an investigating team to travel for the purposes of collecting it.

Ireland can certainly issue an EU arrest warrant directed at a resident of the Vatican; we can do so now. Whether we recognize the Vatican or the Holy See as sovereign is irrelevant to this decision.

The real issue is whether Italy would enforce the arrest warrant - i.e. arrest the person concerned and sent them to Ireland. Italy recognizes the sovereignty of the Vatican City State, and indeed has bound itself by treaty to do so, and this is not something which Ireland can change. As long as Italy recognizes the Vatican, then (a) they won’t enforce the arrest warrant within Vatican territory, and (b) they won’t enforce the arrest warrant in Italian territory against someone with a claim to diplomatic or sovereign immunity on the basis of their connection with the Vatican. (Note that most Vatican residents have no such claim; they can be arrested in Italy, and are, when the occasion arises.)

So that’s an area where Vatican/Holy See sovereignty could provide church officials with a degree of protection which would not otherwise be available. But it would be Italian recognition of sovereignty that would be at issue here, not Irish recognition.

More to the point, it’s a hypothetical. We haven’t issued an EU arrest warrant against any church official who is resident in the Vatican. Nothing I’ve seen reported suggests that we have anything like the the evidence that would be required under Irish law to support the issue of a warrant. And my question in this thread is not “can we conceive of a hypothetical in which recognition of Vatican sovereignty could provide protection to a church official against investigation or prosecution?” It’s “is it already the case that church officials are using recognition of Vatican sovereignty in this way?”, which I think is the claim made in post #11.

The parallel with the Toscan du Plantier case is not, I think, exact. In that case a French national and resident was murdered while staying in Ireland. The crime was committed in Ireland and the investigation was undertaken by the Irish police. The French asked to be kept in the loop, and to be involved. Whereas when the Tribunal made its request for information from the Vatican authorities, there was no suggestion that any crime had been committed in the Vatican, and neither the Vatican nor the Italian authorities had any investigation ongoing. If we had asked some Italian-based organisation for information to aid a tribunal of enquiry and they had declined to provide it, and we had then asked the Italian authorities to compel them to provide it, I’m pretty sure that the Italian authorities would have told us to sod off. Internationally, countries will co-operate to some extent in the enforcement of criminal law, but they generally won’t co-operate in the enforcement of investigative enquiries, revenue matters, administrative matters, etc.

Just to be clear, I’m not defending Vatican/Holy See sovereignty here (and still less the behaviour and actions of the Catholic authorities with regard to child abuse). I’m just making the point that I don’t think Vatican sovereignty has quite the relevance in this context that some people suggest.

recedite wrote: »

And then there's the fact that when you can manipulate the laws of the sovereign state you reside in, you and your buddies are never going to fall foul of those laws. Berlusconi was a mere amateur at that game.

Yes, you can, but in fact the Vatican has adopted the Italian Criminal Code wholesale, so it doesn’t appear that they take advantage of this opportunity, at least when it comes to criminal law. It’s unlikely that the Italian criminal code penalizes a failure to report a crime committed ioutside Italy; Irish criminal law certainly doesn’t. So we can hardly say that the failure of the Vatican legal code to do so amounts to manipulation.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Internationally, countries will co-operate to some extent in the enforcement of criminal law, but they generally won’t co-operate in the enforcement of investigative enquiries, revenue matters, administrative matters, etc.

I think the key point here is that the matters referred to in the Ryan report were criminal matters. And the Vatican refused to co-operate.
The crimes were committed in Ireland, and certain incriminating documents were alleged to have been sent from a bishops palace to the Vatican, where they remain in a secret archive.

Are you saying that if Italy had sovereignty over these guys, they would still be allowed to thumb their noses at an official Irish government request for access to those documents?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I think the key point here is that the matters referred to in the Ryan report were criminal matters. And the Vatican refused to co-operate.
The crimes were committed in Ireland, and certain incriminating documents were alleged to have been sent from a bishops palace to the Vatican, where they remain in a secret archive.

I think not. I’m speaking from memory here, but I think what the Tribunal asked the Vatican authorities for, was details of reports to Rome of abuse worldwide not specifically from Ireland, and not specifically in relation to the cases that were known to have occurred in Ireland.

recedite wrote: »

Are you saying that if Italy had sovereignty over these guys, they would still be allowed to thumb their noses at an official Irish government request for access to those documents?

Yes, they would. The Tribunal of Enquiry wasn’t a police investigation into crimes with a view to prosecution. It was a fact-finding exercise. The Italian authorities might (or might not) have co-operated with it themselves, if they had any relevant information in their own archives, but I don’t see any basis on which they would have compelled (or indeed wanted to compel) Italian residents - individuals or groups - to co-operate. The Irish state, quite simply, has no authority in Italy; there is no reason why Italians should be compelled to co-operate with researches and enquiries undertaken by the Irish government, or why the Italian government would want to compel them. And I think this is generally true; I can’t, off-hand, think of any government enquiry/royal commission/tribunal from any country making investigations in foreign jurisdictions under compulsion of the local law. This is just not the kind of co-operation which sovereign states extend to one another; it’s too great a compromise of sovereignty. Remember, the whole point of sovereignty is to protect citizens from the demands and depredations of foreign powers. The default position is that a sovereign doesn't enforce the orders, judgments, laws, etc of other states. There are of course many exceptions to that default, but each of them needs a clear legal basis and is carefully defined.

Even in criminal matters, co-operation is subject to quite strict limits. In the du Plantier case, the Guards were making their own investigations and were happy to share the outcome with the French police. They were also happy to host French police officers who came to observe. But there was a limit to what the French police could do. For instance, they couldn’t interview anyone who didn’t agree to be interviewed, and anyone who did agree could decline to answer their questions. They couldn’t require the guards to interview, and still less to detain, anyone (though they did try, by all accounts). They couldn't have anyone arrested. They couldn't enforce French search warrants against Irish premises or records or documents kept in Ireland. Etc, etc. But none of this is really analogous to the Murphy enquiry, because that wasn’t a criminal investigation.